date: 28 september 2012 12-09-28... · 2016. 11. 1. · road, the drive, part of worple road...

Delegated Report

Cabinet Member: Environmental Sustainability & Regeneration

Date: 28th September 2012 Agenda item:

Wards: Raynes Park, Village

Subject: Proposed RPE CPZ – Statutory Consultation

Lead officer: Chris Lee, Director of Environment & Regeneration

Lead member: Councillor Andrew Judge, Cabinet Member for Environmental Sustainability and Regeneration

Forward Plan reference number: N/A

Contact Officer: Leonardo Morris, Tel: 020 8545 3840

Email: [email protected]

Recommendations:

That the Cabinet Member considers the issues detailed in this report and

A) Notes the result of the statutory consultation carried out between 04 May and 25 May 2012 on the proposals to include Arterberry Road, Dunmore Road, Langham Road, Stanton Road, The Drive, part of Worple Road (204-sub station and 123-185) and Wyke Road into RPE CPZ, operational Monday to Friday between 8.30am and 6.30pm.

B) Agrees to proceed with the making of the Traffic Management Orders (TMOs) for the implementation to create a new Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) to beknown as RPE CPZ which will include Arterberry Road, Dunmore Road, Langham Road, Stanton Road, The Drive, part of Worple Road (204-sub station and 123-185) and Wyke Road, operational Monday to Friday between 8.30am and 6.30pm as shown in Drawing No. Z78-188-01-02 Rev B CPZ RPE in Appendix 1.

C) Agrees to proceed with the making of the Traffic Management Orders (TMOs) of the proposed double yellow line waiting restrictions at key locations such as junctions, bends, cul de sacs and locations where traffic flow is impeded to include Arterberry Road, Dunmore Road, Langham Road, Stanton Road, The Drive, part of Worple Road and Wyke Road.

D) Agrees to proceed with the amendment to convert the proposed double yellow lines adjacent to property no's 37/39 Stanton Road to permit holder parking.

1. PURPOSE OF REPORT AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.1 This report details the results of the statutory consultation carried out with the residents and businesses in the proposed Raynes Park Ward area, and recommends the introduction of the proposed measures shown on Drawing No. Z78-188-01-02 Rev B CPZ RPE in Appendix 1.

1.2 It identifies the amendments made to certain aspects of the original design in response to feedback received.

1.3 It seeks approval to proceed with the making of the Traffic Management Orders (TMOs) for the implementation to include Arterberry Road, Dunmore Road, Langham Road, Stanton Road, The Drive, part of Worple Road and Wyke Road into ‘RPE’ CPZ, operational Monday to Friday between 8.30am and 6.30pm.

www.merton.gov.uk

2. DETAILS

2.1 The key objectives of parking management include: Tackling of congestion by reducing the level and impact of traffic in town centres

and residential areas. Making the borough’s streets safer and more secure, particularly for pedestrians

and other vulnerable road users through traffic management measures. Managing better use of street spaces for people, goods and services, ensuring

that priority is allocated to meet the objectives of the strategy. Improving the attractiveness and amenity of the borough’s streets, particularly in

town centres and residential areas. Encouraging the use of more sustainable modes of transport.

2.2 Controlled parking zones, aim to provide safe parking arrangements, whilst giving residents and businesses priority access to available kerbside parking space. It is a way of controlling the parking whilst improving and maintaining access and safety for all road users. A CPZ comprises of yellow line waiting restrictions and various types of parking bays operational during the controlled times. These types of bays include the following:

Permit holder bays: - For use by resident permit holders, business permit holders and those with visitor permits.

Pay and display shared use/permit holder bays: - For use by pay and display customers and permit holders. Pay and display bays: - For use by pay and display customers.

2.3 A CPZ includes double yellow lines (no waiting ‘At Any Time’) restrictions at key

locations such as at junctions, bends and along certain lengths of roads where parking impedes the flow of traffic or would create an unacceptable safety risk e.g. obstructive sightlines or unsafe areas where pedestrians cross.

2.4 Within any proposed CPZ or review, the Council aims to reach a balance between the needs of the residents, businesses, visitors and all other users of the highway. It is normal practice to introduce appropriate measures if and when there is a sufficient majority of support or there is an overriding need to ensure access and safety. In addition the Council would also take into account the impact of introducing the proposed changes in assessing the extent of those controls and whether or not they should be implemented.

2.5 The CPZ design comprises mainly of permit holder bays to be used by residents, their visitors or business permit holders and a limited number of pay and display shared use bays, which are mainly located near businesses. The layout of the parking bays are arranged in a manner that provides the maximum number of suitable parking spaces without jeopardising road safety and the free movement of traffic.

2.6 Within the CPZ, waiting restrictions are proposed at key locations such as at junctions, bends and passing gaps. These restrictions will improve access for emergency services; refuse vehicles and the overall safety for all road users, especially those pedestrians with disabilities and parents with prams.

3. CONSULTATION UNDERTAKEN

Statutory Consultation

3.1 The statutory consultation was carried out between 4 May and 25 May 2012. The consultation included the erection of street notices on lamp columns in the vicinity of the proposals and the publication of the Council’s intentions in the Local Guardian and the London Gazette. Consultation documents were available at the Link, Merton

www.merton.gov.uk

Civic Centre and on the Council’s website. A newsletter with a plan as shown in Appendix 3 was also circulated to all those properties included within the original larger consultation area.

3.2 Extent of the consultation.

3.3 The statutory consultation resulted in 79 representations for the proposed RPE CPZ. of these, 56 were from residents/businesses within the proposed CPZ and 23 were from respondents who live outside the borough or outside the proposed zone, of which 21 against the scheme and 2 in favour.

3.2 Of the 56 residents/businesses within the proposed RPE CPZ who responded, 33 are in favour of the proposals, 16 against and 7 commented on the proposals.

Amendments to parking proposals

3.3 In response to the feed back received from the residents, the following amendments have been made to the original design. These are shown on Drawing No. Z78-188-01-02 Rev B CPZ RPE in Appendix 1.

Stanton Road

3.4 Convert the proposed double yellow line adjacent to property no's 37/39 Stanton Road to permit holder parking. These double yellow lines were originally proposed as a passing gap, but at the request of residents and following further investigation it is felt that there is an existing crossover adjacent to property no 14 Stanton Road that could serve as a passing gap in this vicinity, at the eastern end of Stanton Road.

Ward Councillor Comments

www.merton.gov.uk

3.5 No written comments were received at the time of writing this report. However, on 16 August 2012, officers met with two Raynes Park Ward Councillors and carried out a comprehensive analysis of the results, after which time an agreement was reached for the Cabinet Member to make a decision on the proposals to apply controls to those roads detailed in this report.

4. PROPOSED MEASURES

4.1 It is proposed to create a new Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) to be known as RPE CPZ, which will include Arterberry Road, Dunmore Road, Langham Road, Stanton Road, The Drive, part of Worple Road (204-sub station and 123-185) and Wyke Road into RPE CPZ, operational Mondays to Fridays between 8.30am and 6.30pm as shown on Drawing No. Z78-188-01-02 Rev B CPZ RPE in Appendix 1.

4.2 It is also proposed to implement double yellow line waiting restrictions at key locations such as junctions, bends, cul de sacs and locations where traffic flow is impeded to include Arterberry Road, Dunmore Road, Langham Road, Stanton Road, The Drive, part of Worple Road and Wyke Road.

4.3 An amendment to convert the proposed double yellow lines adjacent to property nos 37/39 Stanton Road to permit holder parking is proposed in response to comments received during the consultation period.

4.4 Officers recommend that it would be reasonable to tackle the injudicious parking and respond to the needs/demands of the affected residents in the roads where there is majority support for introducing a CPZ and be mindful of those roads which opted against and the impact a CPZ in neighbouring roads would have if they were to be excluded.

4.5 The CPZ design comprises of mainly permit holder bays to be used by residents, businesses and their visitors with some shared use facilities made available for pay & display customers. The layout of the parking bays are arranged in a manner that provides the maximum number of suitable parking spaces without jeopardising road safety and the free movement of traffic.

Permit Issue Criteria:

4.6 It is proposed that the residents’ permit parking provision should be identical to that offered in other controlled parking zones in Merton at the time of consultation. The cost of the first permit in each household is £65 per annum; the second permit is £110 and the third permit cost is £140. An annual Visitor permit cost is £140.

Visitors’ permits:

4.7 All-day Visitor permits are £2.50 and half-day permits at £1.50. Half-day permits can be used between 10am & 2pm or 12pm & 4pm. The allowance of visitor permits per adult in a household shall be 50 full-day permits, 100 half-day permits or a combination of the two.

Business permits:

4.8 It is proposed that the business permit system should be the same for zones elsewhere in the borough, maintaining the charges of £331.50 per 6 months, at the time of consultation, with a maximum of only two permits per business without off- street parking facilities.

Teachers Permits:

4.9 For state schools located in CPZs the cost of the Permit will be £188 per annum. Private schools are considered as businesses and the permit will be charged at the current business permit rate of £221 for 6 months for one permit.

Trades Permits:

www.merton.gov.uk

4.10 Trade Permits are priced at £900 per annum. Trades permits can also be purchased for 6 months at £600, 3 months at £375, 1 month at £150 and Weekly at £50.

Pay & Display tickets:

4.11 It is recommended that the charge for parking within the pay and display shared use/permit holder bays reflect the standard charges applied to these types of bays in the borough, at the time of consultation. The cost will be £1 per hour. Purchase of tickets will be available before 9.30am.

5 TIMETABLE

5.1 If a decision is made to proceed with the implementation of the proposed CPZ, Traffic Management Orders could be made within six weeks. This will include the erection of the Notices on lamp columns in the area, the publication of the made orders in the Local Guardian and the London Gazette. The documents will be made available at the Link, Civic Centre and on the Council’s website. A newsletter will be distributed to all the premises within the consulted area informing them of the decision.

6. ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS

6.1 Do nothing. This would not address the current parking demands of the residents in respect of their views expressed during the informal consultation, as well as the Council's duty to provide a safe environment for all road users.

6.2 Not to introduce the proposed yellow line waiting restrictions would not address the obstructive parking currently being experienced and will not improve access for the emergency services; refuse vehicles and the overall safety for all road users.

7 FINANCIAL RESOURCE AND PROPERTY IMPLICATIONS

7.1 The cost of implementing the proposed measures is estimated at £50k. This includes the publication of the made Traffic Management Orders, the road markings and the signs. This does not include consultation and staff costs.

7.2 The Environment and Regeneration capital budget for 2012/13 contains a provision of £200k for Parking Management schemes. The cost of this proposal can be met from this budget. It should be noted that £40k allocated from S106 secured from Waitrose development will be fully utilised to cover part of the Council’s cost.

7.3 There will be additional Civil Enforcement Officer costs in terms of the need for an additional half of a post at the cost of approximately £16k. This will generate an estimated gross income of about £40k per annum. Legislation states that any ‘surplus’ revenue generated must be used in accordance with section 55 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.

8. LEGAL AND STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS

8.1 The Traffic Management Orders would be made under Section 6 and Section 45 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (as amended). The Council is required by the Local Authorities Traffic Order (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 to give notice of its intention to make a Traffic Order (by publishing a draft traffic order). These regulations also require the Council to consider any representations received as a result of publishing the draft order.

8.2 The Council has discretion as to whether or not to hold a public inquiry before deciding whether or not to make a traffic management order or to modify the published draft order. A public inquiry should be held where it would provide further information, which would assist the Council in reaching a decision.

www.merton.gov.uk

9. HUMAN RIGHTS & EQUALITIES AND COMMUNITY COHENSION IMPLICATIONS

9.1 The implementation of new CPZs and the subsequent changes to the original design affects all sections of the community especially the young and the elderly and assists in improving safety for all road users and achieves the transport planning policies of the government, the Mayor for London and the Borough.

9.2 By maintaining clear junctions, access and sightlines will improve, thereby improving the safety at junctions by reducing potential accidents.

9.3 The Council carries out careful consultation to ensure that all road users are given a fair opportunity to air their views and express their needs. The design of the scheme includes special consideration for the needs of people with blue badges, local residents, businesses as well as charitable and religious facilities. The needs of commuters are also given consideration but generally carry less weight than those of residents and local businesses.

9.4 Bodies representing motorists, including commuters are included in the statutory consultation required for draft traffic management and similar orders published in the local paper and London Gazette.

10. CRIME AND DISORDER IMPLICATION

10.1 N/A

11. RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS

11.1 The risk of not introducing the proposed parking arrangements is that the existing parking difficulties would continue and it would do nothing to assist the residents and the local business community.

11.2 The risk in not addressing the issues from the informal consultation exercise would be the loss of confidence in the Council. The proposed measures may cause some dissatisfaction from those who have requested status quo or other changes that cannot be implemented but it is considered that the benefits of introducing the measures outweigh the risk of doing nothing.

12. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPICATIONS

12.1 Before reaching a decision to make the necessary Traffic Management Order to implement a CPZ scheme, the Council must follow the statutory consultation procedures pursuant to the Road Traffic Regulation Act (“RTRA”)1984 and the Local Authorities Traffic Orders (Procedure)(England and Wales) Regulations1996. All objections received must be properly considered in the light of administrative law principles, Human Rights law and the relevant statutory powers.

12.2 The Council’s powers to make Traffic Management Orders arise mainly under

sections 6, 45, 46, 122 and 124 and schedules 1 and 9 of the RTRA 1984. 12.3 When determining the type of parking places are to be designated on the highway,

section 45(3) requires the Council to consider both the interests of traffic and those of the owners and occupiers of adjoining properties. In particular, the Council must have regard to: (a) the need for maintaining the free movement of traffic, (b) the need for maintaining reasonable access to premises, and (c) the extent to which off-street parking is available in the neighbourhood or if the provision of such parking is likely to be encouraged by designating paying parking places on the highway.

12.4 By virtue of section 122, the Council must exercise its powers under the RTRA 1984

so as to secure the expeditious, convenient and safe movement of vehicular and other traffic including pedestrians, and the provision of suitable and adequate

www.merton.gov.uk

parking facilities on and off the highway. These powers must be exercised so far as practicable having regard to the following matters:-

(a) the desirability of securing and maintaining reasonable access to premises.

(b) the effect on the amenities of any locality affected including the regulation and restriction of heavy commercial traffic so as to preserve or improve amenity.

(c) the national air quality strategy.

(d) facilitating the passage of public service vehicles and securing the safety and convenience of their passengers.

(e) any other matters appearing to the Council to be relevant.

13. APPENDICES

13.1 The following documents are to be published with this report and form part of the report.

Appendix 1 – Plan of proposals – Drawing No. Z78-188-01-2 Rev B CPZ RPE

Appendix 2 – Representations and officers’ comments

Appendix 3 – Statutory Consultation Documents

www.merton.gov.uk

Drawing No. Z78-188-01-2 Rev B CPZ RPE Appendix 1

Representations and officers’ comments Appendix 2

'RPE CPZ' - REPRESENTATIONS – IN FAVOUR

ARTERBERRY ROAD

(12274807) Resident in zone

As a residents, I am writing in support of an extension to the Controlled Parking Zone area to include Arterberry Road. Since the extension of the controlled parking in the roads surrounding Arterberry Road, it has become increasingly difficult to find parking places close to where I live, especially during the working day. I would therefore fully support the 'opt in' option to extend the scheme. I do not think, however, that the proposed 10 hour maximum stay shared use bays would deter commuters from parking and leaving their vehicles all day whilst at work. I would suggest that a maximum 5 hour stay would be more appropriate, or make all parking bays in the road shared use, but have a restriction where a permit or pay and display ticket must be displayed between the hours of 11am-12noon. I would be grateful if you could advise me of the outcome of the consultation in due course.

Officers Comments:

It is considered that the 10 hour maximum stay allows more flexibility for residents and their visitors. Commuters tend to seek out free parking before paying for parking. If commuters are found to be abusing this facility the restrictions could be amended.


This is to confirm as owners of X Arterberry Road SW20 my wife and I are agreed that it has become so dangerous in getting in and out of our property due to commuter parking that we have to agree with the proposals for restrictions. It is a matter of time before there is an accident.. We look forward to these being implemented.

(12274919) Business in zone

As General Manager, I am writing in support of an extension to the Controlled Parking Zone area to include Arterberry Road. Since the extension of controlled parking in the roads surrounding Arterberry Road, it has become increasingly difficult to find parking places close to the home and Apartments for our visitors and 65 staff. Delivery vehicles have refused to deliver vital goods due to bumper to bumper parking and ambulances have had difficulty in access the nursing home. I would therefore fully support the `opt in' option to extend the scheme. I do not think, however, that the proposed 10 hour maximum stay shared bays would deter commuters from parking and leaving their vehicles all day whilst at work. I would suggest that a maximum 5 hour stay would be more appropriate, or make all parking bays in the road shared use, but have a restriction where a permit or pay and display ticket must be displayed between the hours of 11am-12 noon. This letter represents the views of 21 Apartment owners at XXX and XX Arterberry Road and the family and relatives visiting the nursing home residents at Wimbledon Xxxxxxxx. A signed petition can be submitted upon request.

Officers Comments: It is considered that the 10 hour maximum stay allows more flexibility for residents and their visitors. Commuters tend to seek out free parking before paying for parking. If commuters are found to be abusing this facility the restriction can be amended during a review of the zone.

www.merton.gov.uk


We are writing to express our strong support in favour of parking restrictions on Arterberry Road. The road is getting more and more congested and there is only a question of time before there will be a serious accident. The environment is stressful and with both schools and elderly people's homes located on the road it is long overdue to introduce a CPZ. In addition to being a busy road for traffic between Worple Road and Ridgeway there are constantly cars parked on both sides of the road including at corners and on entrances to properties. Visibility is very restricted and narrow as evidenced by the numerous smaller accidents involving damaged car mirrors and scratches. Of even greater concern is the safety of the environment and we feel strongly that something needs to be done before people are seriously hurt. We have young children and do not feel safe in the current road environment. We very much hope that the proposal is approved and would also like to thank you for bringing this matter to the committee. (12275217) Resident in zone

I refer to the controlled parking zone Raynes Park area - proposed zone RPNEXT and RPE and the details as shown in issue dated 4th May 2012. As a resident of Arterberry Road, I am strongly in favour of the introduction of residents' parking only as set out in the plan. Since the controlled parking zone was introduced in neighbouring roads, Arterberry Road has become a parking lot for all the other roads and schools. I daren't move my car for fear of not being able to re-park again until late in the evening - if I'm lucky. Parking has always been a problem, but now it is impossible. We have, to my knowledge, at least six schools in the immediate vicinity of Arterberry Road which means we have teachers and pupils trying to park. Evenings and weekends we have Kings College Gym members trying to park and now we have the overflow from neighbouring streets parking which is making life impossible. I therefore reiterate my strong support for the introduction of residents' parking in Arterberry Road, providing I don't have to compete with teachers and neighbouring residents. (12275575) Resident in zone

I totally agree with your proposals to restrict parking in Arterberry Rd other than on either side of my drive. I moved back into my house on 16-12-11 and owing to cars being parked on the left hand side (between XX and XXa) coming out of my drive I cannot see to the left at all (owing to the parking of a car which has to be small owing to area (road) between the houses) as the road rises to go up the hill. To the right I can only see cars if no one is parking directly outside my house. I use my car each day for business and have a near miss every week owing to the lack of visibility either way - this is kama-kazi type driving which will not get better with your plans. On your plan the area of road between XX and XXa is larger than in real life as only a small car can park here. I wish to suggest that you move this suggested area to the other side of XXa then I will be able to see up the hill to the left of XX. On the right of XX I would like to suggest to moving the parking down the road a little so that I can see the fast cars coming up the hill and will with luck live a few years more - it is very dangerous what you have put forward and I hope that you might try driving out of my drive which you are welcome to do at any time of day just to see ho dangerous your proposal either side of XX Arterberry Road is.

Officers Comments: Your comments have been taken into account and following further investigation it was discovered that the crossover layout varied from the layout on site. Therefore, the design has now been amended accommodate to the actual layout. Additionally, the one parking space adjacent to property no 33 Arterberry Road can not be relocated to another location. Access will be assisted means of a single yellow line extending 1 metre beyond either side of your crossover, instead of the current practice of vehicles overhanging crossovers.

www.merton.gov.uk


We would welcome that council’s proposed CPZ for Arterberry Road and believe that this should be introduced Monday – Friday 8.30 – 6.30. Although a shorter time period (9 – 5) would be quite acceptable. There are, however, a few improvements that we would like to see: 1. The proposed double yellow line should be extended south beyond the entrance to XX Arterberry Road by approximately 2 metres to improve the line of sight to the south for vehicles leaving 16 Arterberry (see photo Exhibit 1). This is a safety issue and especially important as vehicles descending Arterberry Road from the North will not now be slowed by having to manoeuvre round parked cars and are approaching XX’s entrance/exit around a blind bend so that we will be forced into the path both of unseen vehicles ascending and fast moving traffic descending Arterberry Road. 2. The shared use bays between the Norwegian School and 30a should be alternated with the bays on the opposite side of the road. The council’s current proposal will narrow the road at this point (see photo Exhibit 2) forcing traffic travelling in both directions into the centre of the road. 3. The existing double yellow lines at the entrance to Arterberry Road from the Ridgway should be extended. Vehicles turning into Arterberry Road are frequently blocked by a combination of parked cars and vehicles exiting Arterberry Road. In extreme cases it is possible to turn into Arterberry Road only to have to back out again into the Ridgway to allow vehicles to exit Arterberry. 4. Where Arterberry joins Worple Road is also a difficult junction that could be improved by lengthening the existing double yellow lines. Arterberry Road has always been somewhat of a rat run and in recent years this has got worse. The problem has been exacerbated by commuters, workers at the Norwegian School and the Nursing Home and students at Kings College using Arterberry as a car park during the working week (see Exhibit 3). I hope that the Council will not allow these categories of drivers to be treated as “Residents” for parking purposes. It is on these grounds that I support the council proposals.

Officers Comments: In controlled parking zones all crossovers are protected by means of yellow lines and it allows for a 1 metre clearance either side of the crossover to assist with access. Parking controls would remove the practice of vehicles overhanging crossovers.

The carriageway on Arterberry Road is wide enough for parking to take place on both sides of the road and allow free movement of emergency vehicles. Parked vehicles also act as speed reducing feature as a clear road would encourage higher vehicular speeds.

The difficulty with the junction of the Ridgway and Arterberry Road is exacerbated by the current obstructive parking practices taking place and the junction would be brought back to its natural state once controls are introduced. Increasing the ease of this junction could encourage further rat-running. If the difficulty persists after the parking controls are in place, this site will be investigated further.

www.merton.gov.uk


I am writing to you to give our views on the proposed introduction of CPZ in the Raynes Park area. As residents of Arterberry Road, we would favour the introduction of these zones as soon as possible and in the most restrictive way. The reason for this is the fact that the driving- and parking situation in our road has become quite unbearable since CPZ have been successfully implemented in the roads between us and the village. Visible to everyone who drives through Arterberry Road on a weekday is the fact that in most parts of the road cars are parked on both sides, even in curves. This is worst around the time school starts and finish in the afternoon. We live in XXx Arterberry Road. This is where the road makes a sharp bend. Even in this sharp bend, people park on both sides of the road, all around the curve. This makes driving quite dangerous. When I have to pull out our driveway, it is very difficult to see traffic coming up and down the road as vehicles are usually parked everywhere, all along the bend and on both sides. The street is very narrow as a consequence and cars driving up and down can only be seen in the last possible moment. Sometimes I feel tempted to honk when I pull out just to make others aware of me, but I don't do that as I don't want to disturb neighbours. For this reason, as a pure security concern, we welcome the proposed double yellow line around the bend. For the rest of the road, we welcome as well all the proposals that have been made. Much of the all day- and everywhere parking is due to either people who work in the local area and leave their car for the day, or due to school pick-ups who extend to hours of parking as there is no restriction at all. As far as the whole day parking of people working nearby is concerned, I would welcome some sort of restriction. Whilst I appreciate that it is convenient for people to drive to work and leave their car the whole day in a residential road at no cost, I don't think this is a sustainable or considerate solution. Living in a city and having limited space for driving and parking, I feel we should all make efforts to use public transport to commute. The network of buses in our area is excellent and so there shouldn't be any need to park the whole day in a residential road - and if people still wish to do so, I think they should be aware that spaces for this are limited and liable to a charge. This is catered for by your suggested shared use bays with a maximum stay of 10 hours. The other factor that contributes to a parking situation in the road that misses a lot of common sense are school drop-offs and pick-ups. Once a parking space is secured, people tend to occupy it for hours, running their errands, having unlimited and unrestricted parking. There are two schools in the vicinity - the Norwegian School in Arterberry Road and Blossom House school in the Drive - but I think it is possible to drop off and pick up children without congesting a residential road the whole day. The best examples in the neighbourhood are Edge Hill and Clifton Road. Both have a high density of even bigger schools, and they have CPZ. Before the implementation of CPZ, the situation for the residents in Clifton Road was pretty much the same as it is at present in Arterberry Road. Now, the situation for the residents in Clifton Road is much improved. The road is less congested, which makes it less dangerous to drive. And parents still manage to do the school run - they walk or cycle more, or use buses. The situation in Edge Hill is restricted as well. It would be unimaginable if there were no parking restrictions in Edge Hill. A very good example is Donhead, who have implemented an excellent system of volunteers helping children to step out of cars as they drive past and walking them safely into the school, thus reducing the need to park. I think most schools could introduce such systems, and I think most parents could manage school runs without the need to park in front of the school. These are the reasons why we welcome the suggested changes and hope they will be implemented.

Officers Comments: Merton Council has a policy of allowing a 10 minute free parking concession for parents to pick up and drop off children in CPZ's. This is only on request by the school and the school would need to comply with certain requirement such as a school travel plan.

On The Downs the Council has worked with the schools to arrange a "kiss and go" drop off facility which has also been very successful. The Council is in the process of developing a similar system with the Norwegian School in Arterberry Road.

www.merton.gov.uk


I think it is a great idea that you are introduce parking restictions to more roads of the Ridgway including Arterberry Road. We are living on Arterberry Road and during the week there are so many cars parked here on the road, on the pavements and even in driveways. The situation have become much worse since there were parking restrictions introduced on some of the other roads. It is now hard to drive on the road because of the number of cars that are parked and often trafic is blocked because parked cars are resticting the flow of the trafic. I hope and expect the parking bays and restictions will help the traffic and make the passing for pedestrians much more safe. Many cars are parked partly on the pavements and it is often a difficult for the elderly people from the nursing homes to walk past them with their walking aids.

DUNMORE ROAD


I fully support the introduction of a CPZ in Dunmore Road and the surrounding area - Arterberry Road, Langham Road and Montana Road in particular. The whole area has become flooded with cars in recent months making it virtually impossible to park in the street at certain times of the day. Parking around the street corners has become extremely hazardous, obstructing vision as well as entry and exit to and from the street. If the RP extension is introduced the problem will be exacerbated enormously because of the inevitable shift of cars from that area over to the RPE and will be intolerable. I therefore support the introduction of the RP extension and the RPE SIMULTANEOUSLY to avoid this situation.


Further to the letters sent recently about the proposed parking restrictions in Dunmore Road I would like to stress that I am in complete agreement. I live in Dunmore Road. Since the parking restrictions in adjacent roads came in to force recently the parking situation in Dunmore Road has become much more severe. If I move my car in the morning to take my children to school I often cannot find a place to park again until late afternoon - in Dunmore Road or any surrounding roads - due to commuters parking.


We are residents at 26 Dunmore Road and are in favour of a Controlled Parking Zone in our road and surrounding roads. Parking has become near impossible in our road and parked cars on corners are endangering drivers and pedestrians alike. A shorter period from 10-4pm would be a preferred restriction time.

Officers Comments: The hours of operation are based on the results of the informal consultation where the largest majority in the reduced area from the options given chose 8.30am to 6.30pm, Monday to Friday and the Council follows the views of its residents. We do have other Controlled Parking Zones in the borough that operate at other hours and varying days, they are all based on the views of the largest majorities. The Council has no view or desire for the consultation results.


This is just to say that we are absolutely in favour of the proposed CPZ for Dunmore Road. At present if we take our car somewhere and return mid morning during the week, there are usually no parking spaces available at all. We then have to drive round the block several times before hopefully a space becomes available, sometimes encountering neighbours' cars doing the same thing. The street is all too popular with both shoppers and commuters. The CPZ can't come soon enough as far as we are concerned.

www.merton.gov.uk


I am in favour of a CPZ in Dunmore Rd as parking has become so difficult and visibility at each end of the road is so bad because of parked cars that there is an bad accident waiting to happen. However, surely 2 hours residents permits a day, say from 10am to noon would be sufficient to deter the commuters, as has been done successfully in the Wimbledon Park area and in Wandsworth where we used to live.

Officers Comments: The hours of operation are based on the results of the informal consultation where the largest majority in the reduced area from the options given chose 8.30am to 6.30pm, Monday to Friday. The Council follows the views of its residents. There are other Controlled Parking Zones in the borough that operate at other hours and varying days, they are all based on the views of the largest majorities.

RIDGWAY


I had occasion yesterday afternoon to drive from my home down The Drive and into Arterberry Road. I was shocked by the dangerous parking - eg one car parked right across the pavement on the corner of The Drive / Arterberry Rd - making visibility very limited and turning / passing dangerous. The situation is now out of hand and some control of parking is surely necessary. Our own drive is often blocked (and we have ordered a white line to be painted to act as some kind of deterrent). I think we are suffering from overspill from neighbouring roads, and also from commuters who park all day for free and take buses into Wimbledon or Raynes Park (I live on the corner of the Ridgway). Can I ask , please, that this issue is now addressed as a matter of urgency ? The situation is intolerable for residents, and accidents are inevitable especially with so many schools in the area.

STANTON ROAD

www.merton.gov.uk

(12274886)(12274925) Resident in zone

I am writing with regards to the proposals for the new Raynes Park East parking permit zone and whole heartedly support this proposal. Please could you implement these changes as soon as possible so that the residents will be able to park on our streets again. As home owner on Stanton Road with small children we are finding it increasingly harder to park anywhere on the road because of the commuters and residents from adjacent parking restriction areas who now permanently park their second or third vehicles on our road so they do not have to pay for additional permits. I still do not understand why the council decided to prioritise areas away from the station before addressing the roads that commuters park on but it is long overdue and we would welcome the proposals. We frequently have had to park on roads 0.5km away and carry 2 toddlers and shopping back to our house. We should be able to park somewhere along the road even if it is not immediately outside our house but for months now this has been very difficult. I do object however to the excessive zones for double yellow parking that has been shown on Stanton road. We already have 3 disabled parking bays on Stanton road (only 2 of which are actually used – the one outside no 41 is used about once a month by an able bodied relative of the occupants who comes to visit). The extent of double yellow lines could be lessened to allow for a couple of extra parking spaces on the corners and I don’t think we need any half way down the road shown on the plan as outside no 42 and 39. The others roads shown in the zone (Dunmore) do not have these areas of double yellow lines at mid points and these would only limit the available spaces further. Please could you take this into consideration? I attach a marked up plan for your information. For future surveys could I suggest for other parking extension zone that you add a question asking residents how many vehicles they own or have frequently parking on their streets. I know that some of the neighbours had doubts that introducing permits would help if the number of cars owned on the road exceeds the available parking anyway. There are some houses who regularly have 4 or 5 vehicles parked on street and it would have been helpful to know how many spaces there are available and how many residents cars there are to allow us to make a more informed decisions. Thank you for finally addressing the growing parking concerns in Raynes Park and I sincerely hope that these proposals are allowed to go ahead so that the residents and not commuters are able to take advantage of the parking on the streets that we pay taxes for.

Officers Comments:

Regarding your concern, the Council can not control the number of vehicles residents own, but multiple vehicles per household is discouraged by means of a tiered pricing structure for additional parking permits per household. The double yellow lines at junctions are to increase safety and sightlines for all road users as stated in the Highway Code. Following further investigation, the Council intends to replace the double yellow lines outside property no 35 Stanton Road with permit parking. Parking capacity on Stanton Road will be monitored and further amendments can be made during a review of the zone.


Thank you for your letter dated 4th May regarding the Raynes Park east controlled parking zone. I am in favour of these proposals as parking is now very difficult on Stanton Road.

THE DRIVE


We strongly support your view. The situation - as others have observed - has become much worse and is frequently dangerous. I would add that another problem has arisen in that inconsiderate drivers - finding it hard to find space - are increasingly blocking our drive (on The Drive) and making access / exit for our own car(s) impossible. I phoned the police last week when I needed to leave urgently only to be told that there is nothing illegal about parking on the road outside someone's access (even when there is a legitimate dropped pavement). This - if true ? - is a big problem.

Officers Comments:

Controlled parking zones (CPZ) offer more protection for access through the use of single yellow line waiting restrictions, which generally extend 1 metre beyond either side of the vehicular crossover to assist with easier access.

www.merton.gov.uk

(12274823)(12274824)(12275103) Resident in zone

We support strongly the proposed consultation for a CPZ to include The Drive and Arterberry Road. The recent introduction of CPZs in Lansdowne Road and The Downs has resulted in large-scale parking displacement". The parking situation in The Drive and Arterberry Road has become intolerable on weekdays. Now we need our own CPZs to alleviate the position. Thank you for considering our view.


I do support the proposal to have a CPZ for the area RPE. My family and I live in a house on Arterberry Road (Number XXX). We believe that the introduction of controlled parking on our road would make it safer for our residents and far less congested. Currently many people who are not from Arterberry Road park their cars, vans, etc on both sides of our road making the road difficult to drive down. Exiting our drive when cars are parked on either side results in a blind spot when driving onto Arterberry the road. You often face a continued stream of oncoming cars when driving from Arterberry Road on to Ridgway. Many of these cars are looking for parking on Arterberry Road. When cars are parked on both sides of the road and you face oncoming traffic, the road becomes congested and you face delays and potential accidents. One such accident, I witnessed with my kids, happened last year on the corner of Arterberry Road and Ridgway. A car was turning from Ridgway into Arterberry Road and another car was driving in the opposite direction. They were on a collision course so the car turning into Arterberry road swerved, mounted the curve, and crashed into the lamp post. The lamppost landed on the pavement in front of us. The police arrived shortly after. The council should have a record of this accident since they had to replace the lamppost.


We write in support of a CPZ in Arterberry Road and The Drive. I have seen the letter sent by Xxxxx Xxxx of The Drive and second his views. Parking in Arterberry Road and The Drive is now at an intolerable level and it is very dangerous. Thank you for considering the views of residents.

(12275103) (12275253) Resident in zone

I write concerning the proposed introduction of CPZs in Arterberry Road and The Drive. Following the introduction of CPZs in Lansdowne Road and The Downs the situation has become intolerable both in Arterberry Road and in The Drive, especially during school hours. There is random parking all over the place, on both sides the road and on the corners - as well as on the pavements. Our own drive is blocked frequently. The situation has become not only intolerable but also positively dangerous for pedestrians, cyclists, car drivers and delivery vehicles. This is especially the case in view of the 2 schools in the immediate area Norwegian School and Blossom House as well as 2 nursing homes Wimbledon Beaumont and Rosemary Lodge. Access for emergency vehicles is a big problem as things stand. I support strongly the introduction of the proposed CPZ in both Arterberry Road and The Drive. Thank you for considering my view.


I write concerning the proposed introduction of CPZs in Arterberry Road and The Drive. Since CPZs have been introduced in Lansdowne Road and The Downs parking in Arterberry Road and The Drive has increased to levels that produce dangers to road and pavement users and huge inconvenience to the residents. From around 8.00am until after 6pm heavy parking on both sides of the roads makes the passage of vehicles (especially vans and coaches) extremely difficult in places, causing regular horn-blowing, frayed tempers and the inevitable jams. Cars are parked across corners causing serious visibility problems for other drivers and pedestrians trying to cross roads. Our own drive is partially blocked most days leading to difficulties driving into and out of our property. Apart from the above, the over-parking makes access for emergency vehicles quite problematic. Since there are two nursing homes and two schools within 100 yards of our residence this will inevitably lead (and may already have done) to real danger for those needing medical or fire brigade assistance. We therefore strongly support the introduction of the proposed CPZs in Arterberry Road and The Drive.

www.merton.gov.uk


I am a resident of The Drive and very much support the proposed CPZ for our road and Arterberry Road. The parking in these roads has now become quite dangerous since the CPZ has started in Lansdowne Road and The Downs. Cars are parked half on pavements and jutting out into the road at the corner of The Drive and Arterberry Road. It is often not possible to see whether it is safe to exit a driveway or turn the corner. Bearing in mind there are 2 schools with young children in the immediate vicinity, as well as elderly people in the nursing homes, I imagine that access by emergency vehicles could also be difficult or hazardous if left as things are now. I would recommend putting one less shared bay near the corner on The Drive, as there are often large council or delivery vehicles trying to manoeuvre round that corner. I hope you will proceed rapidly with your plans.


We are writing to strongly support the introduction of CPZs in Arterberry Road and The Drive. Since moving to The Drive nearly 5 years ago, the number of cars parking in our road has changed considerably and the situation has now become dangerous & intolerable. Following the introduction of CPZs in Lansdowne Road and The Downs the parking has got out of hand in both Arterberry Road and in The Drive, especially during school hours. Cars are parking dangerously on both sides of the road, including the corners & pavements. The entrance to our drive is constantly blocked and due to double parking, makes it very difficult to swing in & out of our driveway safely, as well as even trying to drive down the road. Also due to the volume of cars parked in The Drive, it also becomes dangerous for pedestrians & cyclists, as car drivers vision is very restricted when leaving driveways etc. The road seems inadequate to cope with the traffic and deliveries of 2 local schools (Norwegian School & Blossom House) and the 2 nursing homes (Wimbledon Beaumont & Rosemary Lodge). Just to reiterate, we support strongly the introduction of the proposed CPZs in both Arterberry Road and The Drive.


As a resident of The Drive I would like to urge the Council to introduce a Controlled Parking Zone as soon as possible. Following the introduction of a CPZ to The Downs and Lansdowne Road the parking in this area has become intolerable and more importantly dangerous. As you will be aware there are two schools in the area. The numbers of cars parked on the Drive and on Arterberry Road make it very difficult and dangerous for children crossing these roads on their way to and from school. Driving up and down Arterberry Road has become extremely hazardous. As I'm sure you know Arterberry Road is quite steep and twisting and having large numbers of cars parked on both sides of the road has made it difficult to negotiate. Cars are frequently parked on the corners making it impossible to turn either left or right safely. For the safety of school children and residents I therefore urge the council to introduce a CPZ in this area.


I confirm that we are strongly in favour of the introduction of CPZs to The Drive & Arterberry Road for the following reasons: - The recent introduction of CPZs in Lansdowne Road and The Downs has resulted in large-scale parking "displacement". The parking situation in The Drive and Arterberry Road has become intolerable on weekdays. -As a consequence driveway exits are being routinely shrunk (and resultant blind spots created). - The amount of cars parked has also lead to there being very few areas for cars to pull into to let cars from the opposite direction pass, therefore, causing traffic to come to a standstill.

WYKE ROAD

www.merton.gov.uk


Thank you so much for coming to the rescue of local residents in this area! For too long the streets around the Raynes Park neighbourhoods have been dangerously busy as they provide free parking to commuters using Raynes Park railway station and, even worse, local businesses who use the streets as storage and even, in some instances, as workspaces for cars that are in no fit state to even be on the street much less kept, at the expense of local rate-payers, so that the business owners can derive a business asset at a cost to the public purse. The Council's own transport and environmental strategy, partly on the basis of which I cast my vote in the local elections has demanded and increase in controlled parking to encourage the use of public transport to make the roads safer for all and the environment healthier and for pursuing these goals, despite pressure from commuter and local business interests, The Council and the Highways Department , in particular, are to be roundly applauded. As a local resident active in local associations in Wyke Road I can assure you that the overwhelming view of those of us without a 'special interest' is that this proposal can not come soon enough!


I would like to support the council's proposals for the new CPZ in Raynes Park. The streets around this area are permanently blocked with commuter traffic and business parking to the extent that local resident now find it almost impossible at times to park anywhere near their own homes and I would welcome these restrictions

(12275848) Not in zone

I would like to register my support for this proposed parking plan in Raynes Park. Although I'm not a resident of the immediate neighbourhood myself I frequently shop in the area and visit my son who lives in Wyke Road. As I am over 80 years old I have few other options but to drive when I visit and this is rarely possible as parking is practically impossible and I am unable to walk far. I gather that many of the vehicles parked in the neighbouring streets are either commuter traffic or those of the local businesses, in particular the motor mechanics on Pepys Road. This makes life very difficult for local residents and any measures that ease this problem are to be welcomed.

(12276539) Not in zone

I write in response to the news from the Chairman of the South Ridgway Residents’ Association that the Council intends to introduce controlled parking schemes in Arterberry Road, The Drive, Langham Road, Dunmore Road, Stanton Road and Montana Road. We indicated in our response to the Council’s consultation last autumn that we would favour having one in our road if the neighbouring roads were included in a CPZ. In view of the news that the Council are now going to go ahead with a CPZ in Arterberry Road etc, we reiterate our view that we would support the Council in introducing a scheme for Devas Road (and indeed, Conway Road and Hunter Road as well.) We would prefer a CPZ only running from Monday – Friday, for just an hour (11 am – 12 noon).

Officers Comments:

The hours of operation are based on the results of the informal consultation where the largest majority in the reduced area from the options given chose 8.30am to 6.30pm, Monday to Friday. The Council follows the views of its residents. There are other Controlled Parking Zones in the borough that operate at other hours and varying days, they are all based on the views of the largest majorities.

www.merton.gov.uk


'RPE CPZ' - REPRESENTATIONS – AGAINST

ARTERBERRY ROAD


As the householders at XX Arterberry Road we are writing to object strongly to the proposed introduction of parking controls in Arterberry Road between the hours of 8.30am and 6.30pm. Our reasons are as follows: 1. In recent weeks, following the extension of parking controls to adjacent roads including The Crescent, a large number of people have begun parking in Arterberry Road for the whole day causing considerable inconvenience for those visiting us. This could easily be overcome by introducing parking controls for one hour during the day, say from 10am to 11am. We would fully support the introduction of parking controls for such a shorter period during the day. There is no need for controls for a longer period such as 8.30am to 6.30pm. 2. If the controls proposed are introduced this will cause us and our visitors considerable inconvenience and cost, as we have a number of regular visitors and trades people each week who need to park for periods of one to two hours. Presumably we will have to buy parking permits for each of them as the nearby roads, such as Montana Road, which are not included in the parking control zone will inevitably become fully parked early in the day by vehicles displaced from Arterberry Road, no doubt leading to a further extension of the parking control zone in due course! 3. Examples of regular visitors who need to park near our home are: a) gardeners need to park for one hour a week, b) a reflexologist who needs to park for one and a half hours each week C) other trades people such as plumbers and decorators, who are required from time to time for periods varying from a few hours to a few weeks. 4. In addition we are both staff members of two Church of England parishes and we often have clergy and other staff meetings at our home for an hour or two during the day, involving two or three visitors who need to park. For the above reasons we support the introduction of parking controls for one hour during each weekday, but we object to the introduction of parking controls from 8.30am to 6.30pm. Officers Comments: The hours of operation are based on the results of the informal consultation where the largest majority in the reduced area from the options given chose 8.30am to 6.30pm, Monday to Friday. The Council follows the views of its residents. There are other Controlled Parking Zones in the borough that operate at other hours and varying days, they are all based on the views of the largest majorities. (12275844) Resident in zone

My husband and I own the property X Highview Place on Arterberry Road. You have written asking for our opinions on the proposed new zone. We consider the new Zone a total waste of everyone's time and money and wish to record our opposition to it. Arterberry Rd has never had a problem with parking and would still not have if the Council had not imposed such draconian restrictions in every other road in the area. There are many people who work in the Village or Raynes Park who have no alternative but to drive to work and try and park nearby. It is high time that a sensible option of providing some alternative parking for those people was put forward, instead of just pushing the problem further away from the centres road by road....someone needs to think out of the box for a change.

DUNMORE ROAD


I am writing as part of the statutory consultation to include Arterberry Road, Dunmore Road, Langham Road, Stanton Road, The Drive, Worple Road and Wyke Road into RPE CPZ operational Monday to Friday between 8.30am and 6.30 pm. I do not support the inclusion of the above roads into RPE CPZ. The reason for not supporting it are both A. The Process and B. The Impact. A. The Process 1.The consultation to date does not support it – 51.4% said No. 2. It is in invalid

question to ask whether you would be in favour if neighbouring road(s) or parts of your road

www.merton.gov.uk

were included when it does not specify which roads/parts – how can anyone answer this question when they do not have visibility of which roads are included. 3. The consultation for the existing RPE CPZ (east of Arteberry Road) had not completed making the timing of the initial consultation invalid, when I spoke to someone within the Parking Controls dept at Merton Council I was told that this was just a coincidence that they overlapped each other, which would seem to be badly managed if nothing else.

In addition the case the council give for extending the RPE CPZ is that there was a slight increase in support when asking the vague and unspecified question of whether you would be in favour if neighbouring roads and/or parts of your own road were included and that on that basis the Council finds that Arteberry Road would support a CPZ if neighbouring roads are within a CPZ. The neighbouring roads to Arteberry Road are Landsdowne Road and Crescent Road and collectively these two roads said no to CPZ and more critically no to CPZ if their neighbouring roads were included in a CPZ. So the conclusion I come to is that despite the collective submissions to the consultation from the residents of the neighbouring roads to Arteberry being against a CPZ and Arteberry Road residents being against it, the Council has created a scenario where Landsdowne Road, Crescent Road and Arteberry Road will still get a CPZ. On the basis of the question around neighbouring roads the subsequent knock on impact is that all roads west of Arteberry Road will also get a CPZ despite a far greater proportion of residents responding not wanting it. The council has created a dominos effect, where residents have to have a CPZ in case they are the only road left without one. B. Impact 1. The timing of the proposed CPZ is disproportionate to the parking problem (being one

around train commuters) and does not create the flexibility required for the majority of the residents 2. The cost to the residents, and in particular, Dunmore Road where there is no off-street parking.

On the timing of parking controls the Council is proposing a 8.30am – 6.30pm control which only got 34.4% support whereas 45.8% wish it to be for a shorter time during Monday to Friday. The problem with parking is directly as a result of train commuters , evidenced by the fact that the support for Saturday and Sunday is low (15.7%). Commuters would not park in these roads if there was an hour during the day where they couldn’t park. Whereas by controlling the parking for the whole day this will limit the flexibility around deliveries, workmen, friends visiting etc and the additional expense of buying visitors permits. I note from comments from residents to the formal consultation for the RPE CPZ that the argument was again put forward that more people asked for it not to be 8.30-6.30 than not and the Council, illogically, in my view concluded that you cannot split residents by those wanting full days and those wanting part days. On that basis I can only conclude that the wording of the informal consultation is done purposefully to split the vote of those not wanting 8.30 – 6.30 and thereby increase the hours and thus the revenue that the council will get from visitors parking permits. As a resident of Dunmore Road, the result of having a CPZ will be extremely expensive with two cars and visitors parking required for the many visitors/builders/delivery permits that will be required for the full day five days a week, as there is no off-street parking or garaging.. This is why 57.6% of the road have rejected a full day CPZ and are suggesting either a part day (30.3%) or an hour (27.3%). At the very least Dunmore Road should not have a full day parking restriction and I see no reason why all the roads need the same timing. Summary: In summary I do not support this CPZ extension on the basis that a. The wording in the consultation was unspecific and therefore invalid b. Neighbouring consultations were not completed. c. More residents are not in favour of a CPZ. d. The case for Arteberry Road is invalid due to the lack of support in the two neighbouring roads. e. The timing of the operation is around maximising revenue not about practical flexibility. The cost for two cars and visitor permits for a house in Dunmore Road which does not have a driveway is prohibitive and disproportionate to the problem with commuters parking. One can only draw the conclusion that the Council is on a mission to have the whole of Merton managed by residents parking as it increases the revenue for the Council, it would be better to have an alternative residents parking solution which is used just for those roads which are impacted by commuter travellers where you only need an hour during the middle of the day, this could be a different hour for different sections and therefore not too costly to administer so that the charge to the residents could be at a hugely reduced fee; this would be in the better interests of the residents, which is after all what the Council are there for. Officers Comments: It is common practice to consult a larger area, beyond the areas that are experiencing parking congestion. The Council has an obligation to assist those roads who are experiencing parking difficulty if they are in favour.

Additionally, since the controlled parking zone 'W7' have been introduced the Council has had

www.merton.gov.uk

many request from Arterberry Road residents to introduce parking controls as soon as possible.

A CPZ is often instigated by a small group of residents via a petition. This petition could be from one single road or from an area. Based on site conditions and the possible impact of displacement an area is identified and consulted. This area is often a larger area. By consulting a larger area, the Council aims to advise the residents within that area of the proposed measures that is primarily targeted at those with parking problems and to advise neighbouring roads of the potential displacement. This is an attempt to resolve the parking difficulties of a group of residents and pre-empt the displacement affect and be proactive in addressing it. This is the reason for asking the question “would you be in favour of parking controls in your road if your neighbouring roads are in a CPZ”. It is common for roads that may not be experiencing parking congestion during the initial stage to be opposed to parking controls and pending the level of support may be excluded from the zone. The hours of operation are based on the results of the informal consultation where the largest majority in the reduced area from the options given chose 8.30am to 6.30pm, Monday to Friday. The Council follows the views of its residents. There are other Controlled Parking Zones in the borough that operate at other hours and varying days, they are all based on the views of the largest majorities. The Council has no view or desire for the consultation results. (12275655) Resident in zone

I’ve recently reviewed the outcome of the CPZ survey and I note that the whole of Dunmore road overwhelmingly rejected the need for a CPZ. I also note, and from memory I also voted the same way, that there was a small majority for introducing a CPZ IF one was introduced in neighbouring roads. In my case I would have voted differently had I thought through the potential of the ‘ripple effect’ that we’re now seeing, i.e. that the introduction of CPZs in Lansdowne Rd and The Downs effectively means that a CPZ is triggered in Dunmore Rd. Given the above I think that there should be a follow up activity to re-survey the affected areas to verify the initial results – also that as this process for introducing the CPZ seems to have progressed significantly that the proposal is clearly communicated to all of those affected; so timing for introduction, costs involved, hours of operation, impact on visitor traffic etc. as clearly the survey covered a number of options and I think it’s important that we all review the potential impact in totality. To be clear I am not in favour of the introduction of a CPZ in Dunmore Road, and I am concerned that the initial survey seems to have been viewed as a mandate to continue without due consultation. Please can you respond to my points above and let me know what the next steps are.

Officers Comments: Merton has adopted a 2 stage process when consulting on CPZ; the first stage is Informal Consultation, this is to find out which roads want controls and the favoured hours of operation. The second stage is Statutory Consultation, this is the legal part of the process where the traffic orders are drafted and residents have a further opportunity to object or support the proposals. Dunmore Road had a large majority in favour of controls if "their neighbouring road was in a CPZ", residents obviously took into account the possible displacement effect.

www.merton.gov.uk


We are well and truly fed up with the council and the highways department implementing CPZs by stealth. Although there was a previous consultation which concluded that the majority did not want it, you push ahead by breaking apart the areas and picking them off one by one. And of course, once there’s one CPZ, the excess parking gets pushed to the next street, so then they get a CPZ which pushes it to the next street and so on. The overall reduction in parking spaces is terrible. The fact that we are an aging population and will eventually require more home help will make this prohibitive. What is the benefit? I can’t see any, especially since this age of so-called belt tightening which the council seems to pay no attention to. · It will cost to have extra traffic wardens. · It will cost us fines no doubt. · It will cost us to have anyone come round to fix things or help. The timing of the restrictions is severely prohibitive, limiting any kind of workers. If you simply must have CPZs (which I gather you’re all very much in favour of), then at least make them for only one hour during the day, and not applicable at weekends which would prohibit commuter parking. I don’t understand the issue with commuters parking, particularly as most people in our area don’t drive to work. I’m guessing this is down to the mother traffic – so when mother takes children to school she comes back to find she can’t park in front of her house. Oh dear, how sad. What should be happening is banning the mother drop off routine which clogs up traffic and adds to pollution generally. I would suggest controlled parking around schools at dropping off and picking up time to force people to walk. no parking within half a mile say. Officers Comments: It is common practice to consult a larger area, beyond the areas that are experiencing parking congestion. The Council has an obligation to assist those roads who are experiencing parking difficulty if they are in favour.

By consulting a larger area, the Council aims to advise the residents within that area of the proposed measures that is primarily targeted at those with parking problems and to advise neighbouring roads of the potential displacement. This is an attempt to resolve the parking difficulties of a group of residents and pre-empt the displacement affect and be proactive in addressing it. This is the reason for asking the question “would you be in favour of parking controls in your road if your neighbouring roads are in a CPZ”. It is common for roads that may not be experiencing parking congestion during the initial stage to be opposed to parking controls and pending the level of support may be excluded from the zone.

The hours of operation are based on the results of the informal consultation where the largest majority in the reduced area from the options given chose 8.30am to 6.30pm, Monday to Friday. The Council follows the views of its residents. There are other Controlled Parking Zones in the borough that operate at other hours and varying days, they are all based on the views of the largest majorities.


Thank you for your recent communication regarding the proposed introduction of Controlled Parking in Dunmore Road. We are disappointed that despite the majority of residents in the road voting against this you have chosen to interpret the results differently. If this decision is to proceed we would ask that serious consideration be given to reducing the hours of operation from Monday to Friday 8.30 – 6.30 to Monday to Friday and a shorter time period , preferably say one hour 8.30 – 9.30 am. Having spent some time monitoring parking within the road we can confidently say that the majority of parking by non residents occurs during a very short time period each weekday generally 7.30am – 8.30am. The extended hours proposed, with the significant costs which would be occurred in monitoring are unnecessary and could be easily simplified for the benefit of all. Whist we object to the introduction of controlled parking as proposed we do support the proposal to introduce double yellow lines at the junctions with Arterberry and Langham Roads. Parking at these junctions has become increasingly dangerous and this does need to be addressed. Officers Comments: The hours of operation are based on the results of the informal consultation where the largest majority in the reduced area from the options given chose 8.30am to 6.30pm, Monday to Friday. The Council follows the views of its residents. There are other Controlled Parking Zones in the borough that operate at other hours and varying days, they are all based on the views of the largest majorities.

LANGHAM ROAD

www.merton.gov.uk


I wish to make a representation against the proposals to form a new Controlled Parking Zone to be known as `RPE'. It is clear from the results of the original consultation, that residents in the RPE area were, in the majority, opposed to the introduction of a new CPZ and, furthermore, did not feel that there was a parking problem in their road. These views were expressed in the full knowledge that neighbouring roads in W7 CPZ already had parking restrictions. It is wholly unreasonable, therefore, to use the existence of a CPZ W7 which has been in operation for some considerable time, as a justification for extending it into a new area, and thereby misrepresenting the views of the majority. Residents should have been asked if they would support a CPZ if the neighbouring roads which are not already in a CPZ were Included. It is abundantly obvious that the majority of residents do not wish to see any further extension of the Controlled Parking Zones in the area. The considerable expense to households having to pay for unnecessary parking permits is an unwelcome burden in the present economic climate. Consideration should also be given to the impact on local businesses in the heart of Raynes Park. It is to the benefit of us all to see them thrive. Officers Comments: The informal consultation for parking controls in the Raynes Park area was carried out from 16 September 2011 to 7 October 2012 and the CPZ W7 only became operational 26 March 2012. Therefore, residents views were not taking account of the displacement of CPZ W7. Additionally, since the controlled parking zone 'W7' have been introduced the Council has had many request from Arterberry Road residents to introduce parking controls as soon as possible.

STANTON ROAD

(12274825) (12274885) Resident in zone

Please accept this email as a formal rejection of the proposed Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) for RPE CPZ. With a response rate of only 44.4%, of which 62.3% rejected these proposals there is absolutely no public mandate for this action to be taken. With specific regards to the Raynes Park East (RPE) only 249 responded, of which 51.4% opposed the proposal and only 38.2% supported, a grand total of 95 people! Again there is no public mandate for this area to have a controlled parking zone imposed.

Officers Comments:

For this type consultation a response rate of 44.4% is considered to be high. It is common practice to consult a larger area, beyond the areas that are experiencing parking congestion. The Council has an obligation to assist those roads who are experiencing parking difficulty if they are in favour.

Additionally, since the controlled parking zone 'W7' have been introduced the Council has had many request from Arterberry Road residents to introduce parking controls as soon as possible.

A CPZ is often instigated by a small group of residents via a petition. This petition could be from one single road or from an area. Based on site conditions and the possible impact of displacement an area is identified and consulted. This area is often a larger area. By consulting a larger area, the Council aims to advise the residents within that area of the proposed measures that is primarily targeted at those with parking problems and to advise neighbouring roads of the potential displacement. This is an attempt to resolve the parking difficulties of a group of residents and pre-empt the displacement affect and be proactive in addressing it. This is the reason for asking the question “would you be in favour of parking controls in your road if your neighbouring roads are in a CPZ”. It is common for roads that may not be experiencing parking congestion during the initial stage to be opposed to parking controls and pending the level of support may be excluded from the zone. Informal consultation is carried out to determine the level of support within the area and within specific roads. It is a way of seeking the views of consultees and for defining the actual details of the proposed measures. The result of the informal consultation is analysed on a road by road basis and is used to determine the roads or part of a road to be included within the zone. Once the roads to be included are identified and the design is finalised, the Council undertakes the statutory consultation. This is a legal requirement and is very specific. All stake holders including residents, businesses, emergency services and other road users are consulted thereby given a further opportunity to air their views. The statutory consultation that was carried out during May 2012 was based on the parking controls within the reduced area. All representations received during the consultation are considered before a final decision is made.

www.merton.gov.uk


As part of the statutory consultation process for the proposed RPE CPZ Raynes Park East Controlled Parking Zone, I'd like to state my household's objections to the parking restrictions proposed by the London Borough of Merton. We would not support a controlled parking zone in Stanton Road for the following reason: - The parking problem is caused by the large ratio of cars to households in Stanton Road, and not by commuters parking in the road to use Raynes Park station. A CPZ wouldn't solve this problem, but instead provide each household with an unnecessary charge. Unlike other areas in the proposed RPE CPZ, residents of Stanton Road do not have the capability to park off-road. The parking charge would not cause car-owners to sell their cars, but just impose an extra, needless expense for households in an already-challenging economic climate. The scheme would not benefit the residents of Stanton Road. Therefore we unequivocally object to the proposal of the Raynes Park East Controlled Parking Zone RPE CPZ.

Officers Comments: Controlled Parking Zones return commuter congested roads back to its natural state by removing commuter parking as well as any overspill of those residents in nearby controlled zones avoiding charges. The benefit to residents is that they would no longer need to compete with commuters for the available parking. CPZ does create more available parking during the hours of operation, when some resident vehicles are away, these spaces are currently used by commuters. CPZ do not apply in the evening when all residential vehicles are back.


Following the results of your CPZ survey of the Raynes Park area I hereby lodge in writing my notice against the proposed parking controls and oppose any changes to the current system.


As a resident of Stanton Road I object to your proposals for this CPZ on the grounds that you will be reducing parking spaces in our road and surrounding roads and thus make us pay for the privelege of increasing our difficulties in parking. It is already difficult to find a space in our road on any day of the week as most of the residents have cars. I do not believe that it is non residents using our streets as, if anything, the difficulties of parking are greatest in the evenings and weekends when most of the residents are home. I not infrequently have to park in a neighbouring street now as there is no space in my own road. I strongly object to this being made worse by your principally money making scheme and the way you have tried to play one area off against another by scaremongering that other people would come and park in our street if they had to pay in their own. We all want to park as near as possible to our own house, not walk from miles away just because it might be free... I hope this scheme is dropped, the residents of Stanton Road have rejected these and similar proposals every time we have been asked.

Officers Comments: Controlled Parking Zones (CPZ's) return congested roads back to its natural state by removing commuter parking as well as any overspill of residents in nearby controlled zones avoiding the charges. The benefit to residents is that they would no longer need to compete with commuters for the available parking. CPZ's do create more available parking during the hours of operation, when some resident vehicles are away, these spaces are currently used by commuters. CPZ's do not apply in the evening when all residential vehicles are back.

www.merton.gov.uk


My objections to the decision to proceed with the statutory consultation are two fold: 1. The attempt to control parking does not address the real problem which is that there are too many cars on our streets. It may seem orderly and satisfying to council members to "control" the parking of these cars, but in fact it is a genuine example of nannying interference. Car owners are functioning adults who are capable of sorting their own parking arrangements, and living with the consequences of car ownership in a free society. People I have spoken to on this street are worried that it will be difficult and expensive to have visitors [this is especially so for the elderly and disabled] and annoyed that every detail of our lives has to be ordered about as if we were a bunch of children. There will be more difficulties in parking, because the space to be allocated to each car will be greater than needed in many cases. Thus there will be less space available. Trade vehicles will not be able to find a place. Visitors will be inconvenienced. Your proposed scheme will not answer any actual problem. 2. I object to your erroneous use of statistics, which you clearly do not understand. (a) You state that there are two separate areas in favour of controls. This is incorrect. You mask the lack of support in Coombe Lane and Somerset in RP zone and all except Lagham Road in RPE zone by counting the raw numbers of total responses in favour of CPZ in Raynes Park zones. (b) You say it is reasonable to consider responses in respect of roads near to an existing controlled area. The residents of 5/6 roads proposed for the RPE CPZ rejected CPZ, KNOWING of the condition of the adjoining roads. (c) There is nothing in the data you have collected to show that any road, other than that of Langham, in RPE wants CPZ. Langham residents said they do not have parking problems. Stanton Road does, but residents can see that the proposals will not fix them, and in any case prefer to live with problems than accept council interference. Officers Comments: Controlled Parking Zones return congested roads back to its natural state by removing commuter parking as well as any overspill of residents in nearby controlled zones avoiding the charges. The benefit to residents is that they would no longer need to compete with commuters for the available parking. CPZ does create more available parking during the hours of operation, when some resident vehicles are away, these spaces are currently used by commuters. CPZ's do not apply in the evening when all residential vehicles are back.

WORPLE ROAD

www.merton.gov.uk


I would like to raise objections to the imposition of the zone. I believe the fundamental cause of the problem parking is being overlooked, namely the lack of a railway station car park in Raynes Park. This has been removed by the Waitrose development and nothing provided, leaving commuters to park in local streets including Langham Road. The rainbow industrial estate may provide a suitable site for a station car park. Commuters come to Raynes Park because it has a good train service. It is unlikely that the train service to other local stations will increase so car parking needs to be provided by the Railway owners. The imposition of existing parking zones has led to the problem being displaced from the station to other areas so a long term solution will not be reached just further displacement. I believe the need for local parking will be increased by the opening of the health centre, again with no user parking available. I reported both these needs in the last consultation along with concerns for road safety. Democratic and statistical issues on previous consultation. The majority of the residents voted against parking zone extension in the eastern consultation 51.4%. Clearly people do not wish to have the proposed restrictions. The Council wishes to go against this. Only by quoting a supplementary question based on opinions in neighbouring roads or part roads; a majority was reached. This is a highly questionable research method, lacking transparency and robustness. Residents were not told that to answer anything other than no would lead to yes. I know now to put no to every question in future. There should be one clear question with a yes or no answer. Council revenues - Residents will have to pay for permits, no information has been given on the amount required per annum per household or for visitors. The £1.10p for pay and display is a silly amount and I fear people will be accosted for change- why not £1? The householders will lose, it will affect saleability of property and the Council seems to need more revenue. Conclusion - A further ballot should be held with a single question conducted by an independent research organisation. The response rate would be increased by a pre-paid response envelope. Officers Comments: The purpose of the supplementary question about neighbouring roads is for residents to take account of the possible displacement affect if a zone should be adopted in their neighbouring roads. This is a completely transparent and simple process. All the information regarding the operation of controlled parking zones and pricing for permits and visitors was sent to all consultees during the informal consultation. The progress of the scheme and all information can also be found on the scheme webpage at www.merton.gov.uk/cpzrpa. Pre-paid reply cards were sent to all consultees during the informal consultation, however during Statutory Consultation residents are required to write in or email their responses.

www.merton.gov.uk


I feel that your 4.5.12 letter is very confusing in regard to what you are asking residents to comment on. I think you are seeking views on whether to implement the rpe cpz, if this is the case then I do not wish for this to implemented as indicated by the overwhelming vote [62.3%] against in first consultation. The hours of operation you are suggesting were also totally out of line with the responses which indicated 10am to 4pm. I hope you will see sense and realise the majority of residents do not wish for merton to waste council tax money on white lines and also introduce a stealth tax on local residents in a time of austerity.

Officers Comments: It is common practice to consult a larger area, beyond the areas that are experiencing parking congestion. The Council has an obligation to assist those roads who are experiencing parking difficulty if they are in favour.

A CPZ is often instigated by a small group of residents via a petition. This petition could be from one single road or from an area. Based on site conditions and the possible impact of displacement an area is identified and consulted. This area is often a larger area. By consulting a larger area, the Council aims to advise the residents within that area of the proposed measures that is primarily targeted at those with parking problems and to advise neighbouring roads of the potential displacement. This is an attempt to resolve the parking difficulties of a group of residents and pre-empt the displacement affect and be proactive in addressing it. This is the reason for asking the question “would you be in favour of parking controls in your road if your neighbouring roads are in a CPZ”. It is common for roads that may not be experiencing parking congestion during the initial stage to be opposed to parking controls and pending the level of support may be excluded from the zone. Informal consultation is carried out to determine the level of support within the area and within specific roads. It is a way of seeking the views of consultees and for defining the actual details of the proposed measures. The result of the informal consultation is analysed on a road by road basis and is used to determine the roads or part of a road to be included within the zone. The hours of operation are based on the results of the informal consultation where the largest majority in the reduced area from the options given chose 8.30am to 6.30pm, Monday to Friday. The Council follows the views of its residents. There are other Controlled Parking Zones in the borough that operate at other hours and varying days, they are all based on the views of the largest majorities.

WYKE ROAD


I am writing to you to object the council's intentions to introduce parking restrictions in this area of Raynes Park. As a resident of Langham Court, I have never had trouble finding a space to park my car in the two years I've lived here. Yes, commuters may like to park their cars on Wyke Road but there is ample space for both resident and visitor parking. One of the reasons we moved to this area is that there were no parking restrictions and for this to change would be deeply disappointing. I have also never heard a complaint about the parking situation along Wyke Road from any of my neighbours. At times cars may have to be parked on the adjacent Stanton Road but if anybody has trouble walking the 200m to the Langham Court entrance, perhaps a disabled space would be more appropriate. I do hope you will reconsider these plans and perhaps deal with any problems in a less aggressive manor.

NOT IN ZONE

www.merton.gov.uk

(12274878) I am writing to you to express my absolute disapproval of the CPZ you are intending to impose in Raynes Park. Not only are you pressing on with this ridiculous scheme to simply try and make some more money out of us residents, but you are going directly against public opinion. The statistical documents which you yourselves enclosed are abundantly clear: Do you feel you have a parking problem in your road: 57.7% said NO Do you support a CPZ in your road? 62.3% said NO Would you be in favour of a CPZ in the neighbouring road were included: 49.3% (MAJORITY)

said NO Not only are you choosing to ignore the fact that this CPZ is entirely unwarranted - only 35% of the residents said there was a parking problem - but your ‘consultation’ on the preferred control hours if the scheme were to be imposed was also a farse: If a CPZ was introduced which days would you like? - 67.5% said Mon to Fri. However, you have decided to go ahead with a proposal to extend the restrictions to Saturdays as well. Surely, if only on a personal level, you would understand that Saturdays and Sundays are days when people wish to share their time with their friends and family, and that these restrictions would be an unnecessary hindrance to this. After a hard week’s work, the least you would expect is to be able to enjoy the weekend without these ridiculous restrictions in place. Which hours of operation would you prefer? - 26.8% said 10AM to 4PM, and a further 26.1% voted for

11AM to 12AM. Your proposal for an 8:30AM to 6:30PM restriction was only met by 25.2% approval. Purely on a mathematical level it is clear that your preferred option of 8:30AM to 6:30PM is the least popular. It simply escapes me why you would go to the trouble of holding a ‘consultation’ if you had absolutely no intention of taking heed of the responses you received from the affected citizens. Aside from being inconsiderate, rude and entirely unjust, it is also a complete waste of paper, time and money for everyone involved. In light of the above, I invite you (Cabinet Member and staff) to justify your actions and decisions, as it does not seem like you have given the situation any ‘careful consideration’ whatsoever. Rather you have steamrollered over public consensus for your own gain.

Officers Comments:

It is common practice to consult a larger area, beyond the areas that are experiencing parking congestion. This is to inform residents of the proposals which could have an effect in their road and for them to take the possible parking displacement into account. The overall results for the larger area was 62.3% against parking controls, however, the Council still has an obligation to assist those roads who are experiencing parking difficulty if they are in favour. For zone RPE specifically a majority of 51.4% of respondents were against controls, but a majority of 52.6% of respondents were in favour of controls if their neighbouring roads were in a CPZ (36.5% against). The roads neighbouring Arterberry Road are The Downs, Lansdowne Road, The Crescent, Delamere Road which have recently adopted parking controls. Additionally, since the controlled parking zone 'W7' have been introduced the Council has had many request from Arterberry Road residents to introduce parking controls as soon as possible. The hours for controls in the reduced area is based only on the results of the reduced area not on the results of the larger area. Therefore, based on the results of the informal consultation, the hours of operation proposed are Monday to Friday from 8.30am to 6.30pm.

www.merton.gov.uk

(12274918) Please will you consider the following objections concerned with the decision to proceed with the statutory consultations re;- a the extension of the existing RP CPZ by six additional roads and the proposed RPE CPZ. Four points are dealt with below, namely, an incorrect conclusion from the survey results, an unjustified change in conditions between the survey and the pending statutory consultation and two questionable interpretations of the statistical data. [1] In the covering letter to residents, issued on 4-5-12, paragraph 2, the statement that there are two separate areas in favour of parking controls is misleading. By counting, presumably, only total responses in favour of a CPZ in the RP extension, the lack of support in Coombe Lane and Somerset Avenue is masked and the total opposition to CPZ in the RPE area, in all roads except for Langham Rd. suggests that some non-rigorous statistical arguments, involving responses to the supplementary hypothetical questions on the survey, were used. See [3]. [2] In paragraph 5 of the letter, the claimed reasonableness of considering roads in an adjacent existing CPZ areaW7 at the stage of the pending statutory consultation must be challenged. The residents of five of the six roads proposed for the RPE CPZ rejected the CPZ option in the knowledge of conditions in the adjacent existing zone and would have been considering only roads in the proposed RPE zone in their responses to the supplementary questions. A new survey and new data would be needed if Landsdowne Road, Crescent Road and The Downs were to be absorbed into, or included with, RPE CPZ. [3] There is no justification from the data for the extent of the RPE CPZ. Residents of only one road, Langham Road, wanted to be included in a CPZ and the residents of that road did not claim their preference to be a result of parking problems. Although Stanton Road and Wyke Road residents claimed that there were parking problems, they obviously did not think that a CPZ would solve them. The data points only to a CPZ for Langham Road alone. The affirmative answers to a supplementary question about neighbouring roads cannot be appealed to w.r.t. only one road, Langham Road, which is not even adjacent to Arterberry Road and The Drive. Officers Comments:

According to the informal consultation results Arterberry Road resident did not support the proposed parking controls in their road, but would support the controls should their neighbouring roads be in a CPZ. The road’s neighbouring Arterberry Road are Lansdowne Road, The Downs, Crescent Road which have recently adopted parking controls. Therefore, it was recommended that Arterberry Road is included in the proposed CPZ ‘RPE’. It was considered reasonable to include this road within the statutory consultation so that the residents can be given a further opportunity to air their views. All the roads proposed for inclusion into CPZ 'RPE' are in favour of controls if their neighbouring roads were included in a CPZ. Additionally, since the controlled parking zone 'W7' have been introduced the Council has had many request from Arterberry Road residents to introduce parking controls as soon as possible.

(12275352)

I would like to strongly oppose your proposed CPZ in Arterberry Road and the surrounding roads. I cannot see the reasoning behind Merton Council's decision to CPZ all the roads leading off Worple Road. They are not close enough to either Wimbledon Town Centre or Raynes Park to warrant people parking in them to do shopping in either Centre. Another alternative could be to CPZ one side of the Road, and the other side could be normal parking, also the Roads could be one way alternating, ie up The Downs, down Edge Hill etc. which would assist the traffic. I work in one of the Schools in Edge Hill and am finding it increasingly difficult to park, I could use public transport but would need to take two buses, which would mean I would probably be late for work every day. I would be most interested in attending any meeting that discusses this proposal. I look forward to hearing the outcome.

Officers Comments:

This consultation was in response to request from residents to address commuter parking in their roads, Merton Council do not initiate Controlled Parking Zones. CPZ's can not be installed on one side of carriageway only, the uncontrolled side would be subject to abuse and obstructive parking. Additionally, converting The Downs or Arterberry Road into one way only would increase vehicular speeds and rat-running dramatically.

www.merton.gov.uk

(12275805)

I wish to object to the above proposed Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ). The reasons I detail below. I am currently employed in a business within Wimbledon Village, working varying shifts. These shifts require me to work early mornings and up until 9:30pm. The proposed plans to increase parking restrictions around Arterberry Road exacerbate an already difficult situation for myself and others. I have no alternative but to commute to work by car; the existing restrictions already mean that I have to walk at least 20 minutes to and from my vehicle, late at night and down roads that are poorly lit thus leaving me feeling extremely vulnerable to street crime. The introduction of the new extended permit area will increase the distance I have to walk and, I fear, the risk of assaults, especially on female members of staff who have to make journeys early in the morning or late at night. I feel that the council is overlooking its duty of care to workers within the borough at the expense of obvious financial gains from any extension of this scheme. The proposed extension of any permit scheme will, by its nature, remove the final few 'free parking spaces' in the immediate area, making parking for workers in local retail outlets untenable. The 'removal' of free parking will force low paid workers within SME's in the area to pay exorbitant rates £50 a day wages v's £l8 daily meter charge) at a time where wages are already under severe strain and will be seen by many as a stealth tax by the council. I appreciate that local residents interests need to be taken into consideration, which is why the initial scheme was largely unopposed. However a balance needs to be struck between residents and local business needs - businesses that attract a high percentage of inward investment for the local area. If these plans go ahead there is a real fear that it will have an adverse impact on low paid workers, possibly leading to business closures which won't benefit anyone in the area. I would be interested to see if a full impact assessment has been carried out by the council on the effects this proposal will have on businesses in the area and how this aligns itself to central\local government's policy in supporting SME's? Finally; I'm perplexed by part of your newsletter. It clearly states that 62.3% of those that responded to the questionnaire on the CPZ do not support the scheme as opposed to only 28.7% who do. This is a clear indication of resident's rejection of the scheme so I'm not clear as to the council's justification in continuing implementing a scheme that hasn't got residents buy-in or their interests at heart? Officers Comments:

Controlled Parking Zones (CPZ's) are designed to relieve parking pressure for residents/ businesses and to remove the commuter parking causing congestion in the area. Staff are considered to be commuters as they are commuting to their place of work. As a rule, businesses within CPZ’s are allowed 2 business permits, these are not for the staff of the business but for the vehicles used for the day-to-day running of that business. The parking needs of the staff of private businesses although considered do not take priority over the parking needs of residents.

It is common practice to consult a larger area, beyond the areas that are experiencing parking congestion. This is to inform residents of the proposals which could have an effect in their road and for them to take the possible parking displacement into account. The overall results for the larger area was 62.3% against parking controls, however, the Council still has an obligation to assist those roads who are experiencing parking difficulty if they are in favour. Additionally, since the controlled parking zone 'W7' have been introduced the Council has had many request from Arterberry Road residents to introduce parking controls as soon as possible.

www.merton.gov.uk

(12275838)

I work for a company situated within Raynes Park and whilst I appreciate certain peoples need for Parking Permits I would like to know what the Council intend to do for the people who work within the vicinity based upon the fact there is no other options to park within Raynes Park either paid or unpaid. I appreciate that for some individuals Public Transport may be an option however there are a number of parents working within the company I work for which this is not possible myself included. For example I have to drop my son off at School in Surbiton (earliest her can arrive is 7.45.) then drop my daughter at a nursery in Tolworth and then drive to Raynes Park to start work for 8.30. It is not possible for me to arrive at each place within my time constraints by public transport. Therefore by removing parking options it may not be possible for me to continue with my employment resulting in me being another number on the benefits queue. I was under the impression that this government was all for getting people back to work, so why is it being made so difficult to work? As stated above I will not be on my own in this situation. I find it ridiculous that in this day and age when so many are unemployed that life for workers is continuously made harder.

Officers Comments:

Controlled Parking Zones (CPZ's) are designed to relieve parking pressure for residents/ businesses and to remove the commuter parking causing congestion in the area. Staff are considered to be commuters as they are commuting to their place of work. As a rule, businesses within CPZ’s are allowed 2 business permits, these are not for the staff of the business but for the vehicles used for the day-to-day running of that business. The parking needs of the staff of private businesses although considered do not take priority over the parking needs of residents. (12275842)

I am writing to make a representation against the proposed new controlled parking zone in Raynes Park, in particular the proposed zone RPE. Confident Dental is a dental practice which has been in the same spot for over 20 years, helping to maintain the oral health of the local community. We see a large number of patients both privately and on the NHS. Dental treatments are often over one hour in length. Many of our patients park out side the practice for treatments between 10am - 4pm in the pay and display bays. Before and after this time, they have to park around the corner on Pepys Road or Langham Road as they can not park on the pay and display bays. Unlike doctors practices, you do not have to live near your dental practice so many of our patients still come to the practice although they have moved slightly further afield. Some of these patients came as children and now bring their own children to the practice. In addition, many of our patients are disabled or have mobility problems and some have to attend with carers and not being able to drive to the practice for their appointments would make their journeys very difficult or impossible. In order for all these patients to continue getting their oral health maintained, we strenuously object to the proposed new parking zones in the Raynes Park area. At the very least, pay and display parking bays should be available for all our patients from at least 9am to 6pm on week days in order for them to continue to receive dental services from this practice.

Officers Comments:

The hours of operation for the shared use bays on Worple Road adjacent to property no 18 Pepys Road can not be extend further as parked cars in this location would affect the peak time traffic of Worple Road, which has three bus routes.

www.merton.gov.uk

(12275850)

Please take this message as a strong objection to your increasing the CPZ zone in the Raynes Park area; figures seem to show that the community as a whole does not wish this scheme to be extended and, of course, by extending piecemeal you force further areas to be sucked into the scheme by the spread of commuter parking. Of course if you place a CPZ next to roads that do not want it, you force their hands later, and this has been the insidious policy adopted for years. As a local resident I want to be able to park locally for doctors, dentists, local shopping etc and this scheme simply plays into the hands of the supermarkets. If you wish to address the commuter problem, please restrict parking for just 1 hour per day, and this opens up the whole area to local people, and may even attract people from further away to use the shops. You will not accept this, because (I can only assume) this is largely a money-raising scheme. I appreciate I am wasting my time and will offer no further support to local democracy; figures suggest I am not alone. Officers Comments:

This consultation was in response to request from residents to address commuter parking in their roads, Merton Council do not initiate Controlled Parking Zones. It is common practice to consult a larger area, beyond the areas that are experiencing parking congestion. This is to inform residents of the proposals which could have an effect in their road and for them to take the possible parking displacement into account. The overall results for the larger area was 62.3% against parking controls, however, the Council still has an obligation to assist those roads who are experiencing parking difficulty if they are in favour. Additionally, since the controlled parking zone 'W7' have been introduced the Council has had many request from Arterberry Road residents to introduce parking controls as soon as possible. (12276039)

I wish formally to express my opposition to the proposed extension of the RPE parking zone to include the Langham Road area. The current proposals mean that as a resident of Pepys Road I will have the misfortunate to try and park on one of the few roads in the local area which are not subject to parking controls -this position is further exacerbated by the number of householders who have converted their front gardens into parking spaces thus reducing the actual space available for road parking due to the introduction of crossovers. I do not believe that there is a need to introduce parking controls in the Langham Road area as evidenced by the availability of parking spaces at any time of day and supported by the responses of the Langham Road residents. That said if the council has actual data to the contra than it would seem that the proposed scheme of excluding Pepys Road from the controlled zone will simply compound this problem by concentrating the only "free parking" in the vicinity into a smaller area. The corner of Pepys Road and Langham Road is the site of Dicky Birds Nursery has any consideration been given to the potential impact on their business of this change? I would have thought that a local council should be actively encouraging thriving businesses not placing additional hurdles in their way. In summary I would like to see the council re-consider this scheme and exclude Langham Road from the proposed changes. If this is not possible then as a last resort either the RPE or RPN zones should be extended to include Pepys Road.

Officers Comments:

The overall results for the larger area was 62.3% against parking controls, however, the Council still has an obligation to assist those roads who are experiencing parking difficulty if they are in favour. Additionally, since the controlled parking zone 'W7' have been introduced the Council has had many request from Arterberry Road residents to introduce parking controls as soon as possible. Dicky Birds Nursery have been considered, this is why there are pay and display shared use bays proposed at the junction of Langham Rd and Devas Rd. Additionally, Merton Council allows for a 10 min free parking concession for all nursery's in the borough, at the nursery's request.

The majority of Pepys Road residents were against parking controls with the knowledge of the possible displacement effect, therefore the Council has no mandate to include Pepys Rd into the proposed zone. However, if the Council should receive a petition from the majority of Pepys Rd residents, Pepys Rd could be proposed for inclusion subject to a further consultation.

www.merton.gov.uk

(12276131)(12276132) (12276136) (12276137) (12276138) (12276140) (12276144) (12276154)

(12276155) (12276156) (12276159) (12276160) (12276161)

I wish to object to the above proposed Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ). The reasons I detail below. I am currently employed in a business within Wimbledon Village, working varying shifts. These shifts require me to work early mornings and up until 9:30pm. The proposed plans to increase parking restrictions around (name of area)(The Drive, Arterberry Road areas) will exacerbate an already difficult situation for myself and others. I have no alternative but to commute to work by car; the existing restrictions already mean that I have to walk at least 20 minutes to and from my vehicle, late at night and down roads that are poorly lit thus leaving me feeling extremely vulnerable to street crime. The introduction of the new extended permit area will increase the distance I have to walk and, I fear, the risk of assaults, especially on female members of staff who have to make journeys early in the morning or late at night. I feel that the council is overlooking its duty of care to workers within the borough at the expense of obvious financial gains from any extension of this scheme. The proposed extension of any permit scheme will, by its nature, remove the final few 'free parking spaces' in the immediate area, making parking for workers in local retail outlets untenable. The 'removal' of free parking will force low paid workers within SME's in the area to pay exorbitant rates (give example of wages v's daily meter charge) at a time where wages are already under severe strain and will be seen by many as a stealth tax by the council. I appreciate that local residents interests need to be taken into consideration, which is why the initial scheme was largely unopposed. However a balance needs to be struck between residents and local business needs - businesses that attract a high percentage of inward investment for the local area. If these plans go ahead there is a real fear that it will have an adverse impact on low paid workers. Possibly leading to business closures which won't benefit anyone in the area. I would be interested to see if a full impact assessment has been carried out by the council on the effects this proposal will have on businesses in the area and how this aligns itself to central\local government's policy in supporting SME's? Finally; I'm perplexed by part of your newsletter. It clearly states that 62.3% of those that responded to the questionnaire on the CPZ do not support the scheme as opposed to only 28.7% who do. This is a clear indication of resident's rejection of the scheme so I'm not clear as to the council's justification in continuing implementing a scheme that hasn't got residents buy-in or their interests at heart? Officers Comments: This consultation was in response to request from residents to address commuter parking in their roads, Merton Council do not initiate Controlled Parking Zones. It is common practice to consult a larger area, beyond the areas that are experiencing parking congestion. This is to inform residents of the proposals which could have an effect in their road and for them to take the possible parking displacement into account. The overall results for the larger area was 62.3% against parking controls, however, the Council still has an obligation to assist those roads who are experiencing parking difficulty if they are in favour. Additionally, since the controlled parking zone 'W7' have been introduced the Council has had many request from Arterberry Road residents to introduce parking controls as soon as possible. Staff are considered to be commuters as they are commuting to their place of work. As a rule, businesses within CPZ’s are allowed 2 business permits, these are not for the staff of the business but for the vehicles used for the day-to-day running of that business. The parking needs of the staff of private businesses although considered do not take priority over the parking needs of residents.

www.merton.gov.uk


'RPE' - REPRESENTATIONS – COMMENTS

ARTERBERRY ROAD


I remind you of my letter to you on 14/06/11,now after nearly a year from my concern about what will happen if Arterberry Road is not to be included among the other neighbouring roads already the council applied the controlled parking on them, now I received your letter and understood that consultation to include our road [Arterberry] in to the RPE-CPZ will be at new discussion after the failure as per the mentioned voting results to implement CPZ for Arterberry Rd. please note the Following Facts On Arterberry Road: 1.The Increased number of parked cars on this road has increases to an unacceptable degree, to the extent that the space between a parked car and the other one is few inches if not touching each other, this clearly is a hazard. 2.the parked cars on this Sigmoid shaped road and on both sides of the road has narrowed severely the view of the coming cars from both directions, I can drive in this formed tunnel to find my self opposite an other car or cars face to face, this happen as the view of the traffic is hidden due this tunnel formed by the cars, even reversing can occasionally be difficult if other cars behind are involved too. 3.the road due to being on a hill and curvy and not controlled in practise for speed dose tempt some drivers to speed up so mush that any reversing car out of its drive might not be able to spot the flying car coming before actual collision, this is not only caused by the speeding cars but mainly by not being able to see the coming car first as our house is near the curve of the road, second the double row of crowding of the parked cars and obliteration of the safe view from the upper direction. 4.The cars now parked in a very unsafe way, just in any space even if the space block partially a car drive or block the view of the car coming out of the car drive, see kindly the attachment on this car parked between two drives one is mine [XXX Arterberry] and the other for my 90 years old neighbour in XX Arterberry, the space between the two drives perhaps a mini car even though this will also blocks the view how about a station car!! 5.we would like double yellow lines in our road in places that either parking endanger life for people like us [XXX and XX Arterberry] as the space between the two drives would not allow for safety purposes, and in areas when the S shaped road necessitate distance and space to view the coming cars. 6.We also demand methods to slow down vehicle speed. 7.The implementation of CPZ at Arterberry Road will organise parking, will add safety to both residents and drivers, and we expect from our councillor to makes our road safe for every one using it and for its residents too. (12275085) Resident in zone

I write in response to your leaflet issued on 4 May in relation to the proposed CPZ affecting, among other streets, Arterberry Road. I am a resident of the road and I have a cross-over which is not currently in use. When the highway was resurfaced in recent years I was offered the chance to pay for a cross-over which I duly did. I did so because I have plans to create a parking area and gateway adjacent to that cross-over. Although my plans have stalled somewhat, it is still my intention to implement them at some point in the near future. The potential use of the cross-over would be lost if a parking bay were placed adjacent to it on the roadway. Accordingly, I object to the RPE but only to the extent of the proposed residents' parking bay adjacent to the currently unused cross-over adjacent to the southern boundary of my property. Please take this objection into account on the grounds not only of the proposed use but also the expense which I have incurred in putting that cross-over in place, in your consideration of the scheme. Officers Comments: Your comments have been taken into account and the parking bay across your crossover will be removed and replaced by a single yellow line.

DUNMORE ROAD

www.merton.gov.uk


We have received a letter detailing the outcome of the informal consultation regarding the introduction of a CPZ in our area. We live in Dunmore Road. I spent some time completing the questionnaire and my view was that I did not support the introduction of CPZ as I feel there is no problem parking in our road. I did however indicate that should adjacent roads become part of the scheme that would be a different matter. I indicated that I did not support a 10am-6 am parking restriction but did support the one of a much shorter duration. In essence, parking in our road is difficult at times due to the Raynes Park railway station commuters leaving their cars here during the working day and occasionally when they travel. Parking is never a problem at weekends. In essence, all we need to do is restrict parking at some short point in the day to prevent those drivers parking in our road. We have no problem with local people wishing to park here to shop in Raynes Park, a community that is part of the fabric of our area and which needs as much support as is possible. I welcomed the opportunity to put my views across and was hopeful that it would actually mean something. How disappointed I was to receive this latest document. The author relies on the outcome of the consultation to suit his or her argument but actually fails to take into account the consensus of those they consulted. We do not want a parking restriction that lasts from 8am until 6pm. That is abundantly clear from the statistics included with the letter. 57.6% would like a restriction of either 10am – 4pm or 11am – 12pm and only 15.2% prefer the 8am – 6pm restriction. So can you please explain why the Cabinet Member is now proceeding with a statutory consultation to include our road for the hours of 8am – 6pm? If those making decisions do not take into account the views of those they are consulting, what on earth is the point of consulting at all! Parking in Raynes Park is appalling, I have no idea how small businesses survive as it is. They need to have local roads available for their customers or they will suffer considerably, is that what the council wish to happen? On this subject, I emailed Merton Council ([email protected] ) two weeks ago in respect of the bays recently created outside the new Sainsbury’s Local. I returned from a holiday and wanted to buy fresh fruit to have for breakfast so pulled into the bay on my way home from the school run. I glanced at the parking sign as I got out of my car and was appalled to see that we cannot park there between the hours of 7am and 10am and 4pm to 7pm so had to move on. I have had absolutely no response from the council so can you please explain why on earth we have paid to create off road parking bays which we cannot use during these periods? Again, it seems to be that you are positively trying to make life as difficult as possible for our local businesses!

Officers Comments: The hours of operation are based on the results of the informal consultation where the largest majority in the reduced area from the options given chose 8.30am to 6.30pm, Monday to Friday. The Council follows the views of its residents. There are other Controlled Parking Zones in the borough that operate at other hours and varying days, they are all based on the views of the largest majorities. It is not feasible to allow a single road to adopt different hours of operation. The Council do not introduce controlled parking in a single road. CPZ’s work on an area wide basis allowing residents to utilise space in a nearby road if by chance insufficient space is available on their road.

STANTON ROAD

www.merton.gov.uk

mailto:[email protected]


Thank you for latest cpz documentation and results of the previous consultation for Stanton Road. Whilst we are not supportive of a CPZ in Stanton Road, we realise that it is probably a foregone conclusion that the road will be included in the next round of CPZ implementation for the Raynes Park area. Our concerns are that there are a few residents who have several (up to 5) vehicles and wonder if it will be possible to limit their permits especially as some are 'business' vehicles. I would also just like to request some more information - 1. How many parking spaces is it anticipated will be provided for residents in Stanton Road? Will it at least equal the number of residents? 2. Why do Nos. 42/44 and 37/39 Stanton Road have to have double yellow lines outside their houses? This would seem extremely unfair and unnecessary. I am certain that a single yellow would suffice in order that commuters are unable to park there during the day. Night time parking in the road does not require these spaces as there is a gap at the crossover by No.14 and the two corners provide spaces to pass or manoeuvre. Officers Comments: The Council does not have the authority to limit the no of vehicles per household, however their is a tiered pricing structure to discourage multiple vehicles per household.

The zone is designed to safely allow the maximum no of parking spaces the road layout allows.

The double yellow lines outside property no's 37/39 and 42/44 Stanton Road are required as passing gaps. These gaps need to be available all day not only during the hours of operation. Following further investigation the Council intends to replace the double yellow lines outside property no 37/39 with a permit holder bay. The crossover adjacent to property no 14 Stanton Road acts as an additional passing gap in this end of Stanton Road.


I live at XX Stanton Rd, which is in the proposed RPE parking zone. Can you please confirm that there is a proposed single yellow line across my driveway (not a double, it is difficult to read), which will enable either myself or my guests to park across my driveway at any time? I am strongly opposed to a double yellow line, but I don't think you have put one there (which is great). I have already liaised with someone in Merton's traffic department regarding the implication of a single yellow line, and they have advised that what I have asked you to confirm is the case (I just want to make sure it is the same when a CPZ comes in). I also note that there are double yellow lines around the corner of the road outside my house, but I don't think that they need to extend so far up the street towards Worple Rd, so I would request that this double yellow line is reviewed, and only as much is absolutely necessary made double yellow. Finally, I am concerned that there are very few pay and display bays in RPE - I assume that it is intended that visitors would be given a permit by the person they are visiting, but the house occupier may not always have permits, or wish/afford to pay for certain people to visit them, so is it possible to have some pay and display mixed use bays?

Officers Comments: A single yellow line is proposed accross all private vehicular crossovers, double yellows are used accross shared crossovers such as entrances to blocks of flats. The double yellow lines adjacent to your property is to increase sightlines and safety for all road users, it is proposed as 10 metres as is recommended by the highway code.

THE DRIVE

www.merton.gov.uk

www.merton.gov.uk

(12274928) Blossom House School

I am pleased that something is being done in relation to the parking problems in Arterberry Road and The Drive. However it would appear that the majority of the parking on The Drive will be given over to residents parking which we feel will make it hard for staff members and visitors to park. The majority of residents on this road and surrounding roads have off-street parking so the uptake of residents parking might well be low. Although there are some metered parking places planned, the cost is likely to be prohibitive for our staff to park every day. Although our school provides lots of parking on site, the residential homes and Norwegian school nearby do not have this luxury. Would it be possible to consider allocating some free parking spaces which might not become available until a little later to discourage commuters and pupils from Kings college school from parking early on, but would allow staff and visitors to park for their respective businesses. The school encourages staff to use other means of transport but as I am sure you will understand some staff have to use cars. In particular, the 200 bus service is extremely unreliable in the mornings and often unusable because of problems with pupils from nearby schools – this is an issue that police and those schools are well aware of, but seem unable to sort out. Would it also be possible to consider a drop of zone for parents for pupils on The Drive or Arterberry road? Without some free parking The Drive and Arterberry Road will probably remain quite empty and this will push cars onto other surrounding roads, giving these a problem. It would also be very useful to increase the length of the zig zag lines outside Blossom House over to the right near Number 16 The Drive. These lines are short and so people park in front of number 16, which means that cars travelling from the Arterberry road direction are forced into the middle of the road when coming around the bend. There have been numerous close accidents and it is a real struggle for larger vehicles, include rubbish trucks, to get past. Officers Comments: Staff are considered to be commuters as they are commuting to their place of work. The parking needs of the staff, although considered by means of pay and display shared use bays, do not take priority over the parking needs of residents.

However, the Council have recently introduced a new type of permit in the borough, Teachers Permits. These permits are offered to schools based on a percentage of the available spare parking capacity in the particular zone the school is located. There are certain criteria the school would need to comply with in order to qualify for these permits. Criteria and further information can be found on the Council website at the following link, www.merton.gov.uk/newcpzpermits.

Additionally, Merton Council has a 10 min free parking concession for all nursery's in the borough, at the nursery's request, to allow parents to drop off vulnerable children.


While, in principle, we do support the proposed CPZ in our road, we must object to the 0830-1830 timing and feel that a shorter period would be more than adequate to deter those many commuters who park in The Drive and surrounding roads. Our main concern is that the knock-on effect, already evident to some degree, will cause enormous congestion in the more major thoroughfares. People have already begun to park on Ridgway, which bizarrely seems to have no restrictions at all, and also I have seen commuters park on Copse Hill. This obviously causes great disruption to traffic. Woodhayes Road is another trouble spot, people often park on the bend which is extremely dangerous for other traffic and again, there are no restrictions. Surely this should be addressed as a matter of urgency? Officers Comments: The hours of operation are based on the results of the informal consultation where the largest majority in the reduced area from the options given chose 8.30am to 6.30pm, Monday to Friday. The Council follows the views of its residents. There are other Controlled Parking Zones in the borough that operate at other hours and varying days, they are all based on the views of the largest majorities. The Council has no view or desire for the consultation results.

Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ)Raynes Park Area, Proposed Zone RPext & RPE

Dear Resident/Business

The purpose of this leaflet is to let you know the outcome of the informal consultation carried out in September / October 2011, on the proposal to introduce a Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) in your road.

The consultation resulted in a total of 1340 questionnaires returned, representing a response rate of 44.4%. As it can be seen from the enclosed table, 62.3% do not support a CPZ, compared to 28.7% who do and 7.6% who are unsure. Further analysis of the results on a road-by-road basis revealed that there are two separate areas that are in favour of parking controls and were recommended for inclusion.

RP extensionArea 1 - to be known as RP extension to include Camberley Avenue, part of Coombe Lane (41-109 & 92-158), Richmond Road, Somerset Avenue, Spencer Road, Taunton Avenue and part of West Barnes Lane (from Coombe Lane to the railway bridge) into the existing RP CPZ. Of the 221 responses received from this area, 46.6% supported a CPZ, compared to 43.4% who did not and 8.1% who were unsure.

‘RPE’ (Raynes Park East)Area 2 - to form a new zone to be known as ‘RPE’ to include Arterberry Road, Dunmore Road, Langham Road, Stanton Road, The Drive, part of Worple Road (between Pepys Road and Arterberry Road) and Wyke Road.

Of the 249 residents within this area who responded, 51.4% opposed a CPZ in their road, compared to 38.2% who were in favour and 10.4% undecided. During the consultation, residents were asked if they would support a CPZ if the neighbouring road/s or part of their roads were included in a CPZ. 52.6% indicated that they would support a CPZ if the neighbouring road/s or part of their road were included in a CPZ, compared to 36.5% who would not, with 7.6% undecided.

The consultation results show that Arterberry Road residents do not support the proposed parking controls in their road, but would support the controls if their neighbouring road/s is in a CPZ. The roads neighbouring Arterberry Road are Lansdowne Road, The Downs and Crescent Road, which are now in ‘W7’ CPZ operational Monday to Friday between the hours of 8.30am and 6.30pm. Due to the displacement of ‘W7’ CPZ it is considered reasonable to include these roads in ‘RPE’ (Area 2) within this statutory consultation so that residents have a further opportunity to give their views (opt in or out) whilst considering the impact of W7.

For a complete breakdown on a road by road basis please refer to the enclosed consultation results.

The results of the consultation along with your views and officers’ recommendations were presented in a report to the Street Management Advisory Committee and the Cabinet Member on the 23 January 2012, which is available on the Council website, www.merton.gov.uk/cpzrpa.

After careful consideration, the Cabinet Member agreed:To proceed with a statutory consultation to include Camberley Avenue, part of Coombe Lane (west of West Barnes Lane), Richmond Road, Somerset Avenue, Spencer Road and Taunton Avenue into the existing RP CPZ, operational Monday to Friday between 8.30am and 6.30pm.To proceed with a statutory consultation to include Arterberry Road, Dunmore Road, Langham Road, Stanton Road, The Drive, part of Worple Road (between Pepys Road and Arterberry Road) and Wyke Road into RPE CPZ, operational Monday to Friday between 8.30am and 6.30pm.To proceed with a statutory consultation to introduce double yellow lines (DYL) waiting restrictions at key locations such as junctions, cul de sacs and locations where traffic flow would be impeded by parked vehicles. Double yellow line restrictions will also be applied to those areas that are now excluded from the proposed CPZs but were part of the original consultation area.

•

•

•

•

•

www.merton.gov.uk

ISSuE DATE : 04 MAY 2012

Statutory Consultation Documents Appendix 3

WHAT HAPPENS NEXTA Notice of the Council’s intentions to introduce the above measures will be published in a local newspaper (The Guardian), London Gazette and posted on lamp columns in the vicinity. Representations for and against the proposals described in this Notice must be made in writing to the Head of Street Scene and Waste, Merton Civic Centre, London Road, Morden, Surrey, SM4 5DX or email [email protected] no later than 25 May 2012 quoting reference ES/SGE/ZONE RP AREA. Objections must relate only to the elements of the scheme that are subject to this statutory consultation.

All representations along with Officers’ comments and recommendations will be presented in a further report to the Street Management Advisory Committee and/or the Cabinet Member for Environmental Sustainability and Regeneration. Please note that responses to any representations received will not be made until a final decision is made by the Cabinet Member. The Council is required to give weight to the nature and content of your representations and not necessarily the quantity. Your reasons are, therefore, important to us.

Following the conclusion of the consultation, updates will be posted on the Council’s website at www.merton.gov.uk/cpzrpa. Alternatively, you will receive a newsletter after the Cabinet Member decision is made, advising you of the outcome of the consultation.

A copy of the proposed TMO, a plan identifying the areas affected by the proposals and the Council’s Statement of Reasons can be inspected at the Merton Link, Merton Civic Centre, London Road, Morden, Surrey, SM4 5DX during the Council’s normal office hours Monday to Friday, 9am to 5pm. A copy can also be inspected at Raynes Park Library. This information is also available on Merton Council’s website at www.merton.gov.uk/cpzrpa.

If you require further information, you may contact Leonardo Morris on 020 8545 3840.

RAYNES PARK WARD COuNCiLLORS

Cllr Margaret Brierly Tel - 020 8545 3396Email: [email protected]

Cllr Linda Scott Tel - 020 8545 3396Email: [email protected]

Cllr Rod Scott Tel - 020 8545 3396Email: [email protected]

(The contact details of ward councillors are provided for information purposes only)

Large print Braille Audiotape

Request for document translation

Your contact:

Name...................................................

Address...............................................

............................................................

............................................................

Telephone...........................................

If you need any part of this document explained in your language, please tick

box and contact us either by writing or by phone using our contact details below.

Sp

anis

h

Leonardo Morris, Merton Civic Centre, London Road, Morden, SM4 5DX

PROPOSED CPZ RPE & RP EXT


Dear Resident/Business,

RE: Proposed Controlled Parking Zone Raynes Park Area

You may recall that the Council consulted the residents and businesses on the introduction of a Controlled Parking Zone to include the uncontrolled roads in the Raynes Park Area. The consultation resulted in a reduced area being considered for parking controls. The Council is now undertaking a statutory consultation on these proposals details of which are shown on the enclosed plans.

The enclosed consultation material is for information purposes only for those residents within the existing Controlled Parking Zones in Raynes Park, zone ‘RP’ and ‘RPN’.

As it can be seen on the enclosed consultation material, the existing RP CPZ in Avenue Road and Parkfield Avenue is proposed to be extended to include more roads.

The existing RPN CPZ is to remain unchanged during this consultation, but could be affected if the roads surrounding RPN CPZ elect to opt into the zone thereby making RPN a larger zone.

In light of the statutory consultation that could lead to possible expansion of existing zones by the introduction of parking controls within uncontrolled roads, it has been decided that it would be more appropriate to review the new zone as well as the existing zones as a whole. The review therefore will take place approximately 6 months after the new zone/roads is implemented subject to the statutory consultation and Cabinet Member agreement.

However, if the proposed new zones/roads are rejected by the majority of the residents, the Council will undertake a review of the existing zones soon after a decision is made to abandon the proposed controls. Either way you will receive the review consultation documents in due course. If you require further information, please do not hesitate to contact me on the telephone number provided above.

Yours faithfully,

Leonardo Morris Parking Engineer Tel: 020 8545 3840 Email: [email protected]

For further information you can also contact: Parking Engineer – Brett Cockin : 020 8545 4869 Senior Parking Engineer - Paul Atie : 020 8545 3214

CORMAC STOKES – HEAD OF STREET SCENE & WASTE London Borough of Merton Merton Civic Centre London Road Morden SM4 5DX

Direct Line: 020 8545 3840 Fax: 020 8545 4865My Ref : RPA EX CPZs Please Ask For: Leonardo MorrisDate: 04 May 2012

ENVIRONMENT AND REGENERATION DEPARTMENT Chris Lee - Director
